Sri C P Balachandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2013

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri C P Balachandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2013

Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

      DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

             W.P.NO.37311 OF 2012 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI C.P.BALACHANDRA
S/O C.H.PANDURANGA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE
BAJPE POLICE STATION
MANGALORE.
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAKSHIT K.N., ADV. FOR
    M/S. NAG ASSTS, ADVS. - ABSENT)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       HOME DEPARTMENT
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE.

2.     THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
       WESTERN RANGE
       MANGALORE
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

3.     THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
       PANAMBOOR CIRCLE
       PANAMBOOR, MANGALORE
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                             2




4.   THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
     BAJPE POLICE STATION
     MANGALORE
     DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, HCGP)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE MANGALORE, DATED 5.9.2008 MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALORE DATED 11.2.2009
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER PASSED BY THE
R1 DATED 28.10.2009 VIDE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NO.OE-113-PCA 2009, BANGALORE, MARKED ANNEXURE-
D.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                       ORDER

There is no appearance for the petitioner.

2. Perused the writ record. Petitioner is a Police Constable and has questioned an order of censure, as at Annexure-A, which was affirmed in appeal vide order, as at Annexure-B.

3. The grievance of the petitioner falls within the definition of 'service', defined under Section 3(q) of the 3 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Petitioner has to approach the court of first instance in terms of the decision in the case of L.CHANDRA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1994 (5) SCC 539.. Writ petition is not maintainable.

Petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek relief before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, if he is so advised.

Sd/-

JUDGE ca

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court