Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vs B G H Buddesh on 10 August, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS 'THE 10?" my 0? AUGUST, 2009
PRESENT
THE HON"B£_E MR.3US"fiCE K.L.MANJuNAif§+
AND
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE RQh:v1"MAuMAjm = "
wan' APPEAL mo.236§L"@.F 2cjc.asg§_-Q5)
BETWEEN :
Barzgalere Mahan:a.gai§r_é;_VPa§i'ke. "'"_ '
Represented .rsy-its * . i:::,;
Cc-rnmissiontzr, _ --.
NR Square, ~ " % ' '
Bangalore. " _ ' S APPELLANT
(By Sri R. Subranfinfja féir Ash6:i< Haffiahalii,
Adztqcatefii. V _ '
A!§ii:!A:' A'
- 1. BGH.Buddesf1;.
" S/0 B;4.__Ha:_1;a~maf.*nthappa,
'Aged ai>putx41 years,
--« Tax Inspecter,
' Bangja-lgzre Mahanagara Palike,
T9)'-3; ~37'?-'Cross,
- ȣ*.in'gayyanna Palya,
Bangalore --~ 560 066.
2. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban
Deveiopment,
Represented by its
Secretary,
MS Building, 1
Dr. Arnbedkar Veedhi,
Bangaiore --- sec 001. "r.%%i.;;Respic;':ir:§ivTé;; V
(Ey Sri hiaga Prasanna for P.S."VRa;iVégopai;" .5
Advocates for R1, Smt. Asha l\{ii.i<iimba--a'gerimath.,
Advocate) V ' .. .
This Writ Appeal is'"fi'ie.éi; V-ti2iréVV"i{arnataka High
Court Act prayi*ng9i;c set._as:id*ae ti1'e_orciver__.;;assed in the Writ
Petition No.__2.G3»Q{2.Q(;.3 'c3ai3i:_§<1...O6j{i1/2005.
ThiF$i..._3f3'§):é43i:'71:;,_CQF'!}jii}.§ A hearing this day,
Manjunjath .'i.;i.E2giivé;red_4t'hg_§oiiowireg:- '
Affine Sheri: q.uesticifi"'Vthat arises for consideration
a'pp'eaf£ isiijsihéther the learned Single Judge is
""ju'étifiecif--irj"'Vreséersing the order of termination and
modify t1heiérder cf punishment.
5%
-3...
2. The facts leading to this case
l'iereL:nder:-
The respondent was an bemployeeif"iijoftfithe "
appellanbcorporation. He was iixgorlting '§"»:V{3r_e'~=:;_l' keeper and as in-charge of th_e'--..files;'-VA chesf§jei._'men.*io i was issued on the groorici thxat.l:V'he_ had the files. A show-cause notite_ _18-124997 as per Annexureeéi to that the records perlziiirimgll---:iig:j.,V__ and building plan are """ the respondent is responsil5ie"for was called upon to show ;:a;:se'la~sv'towhy_"a'i:tion should not be taken in "'acco:¥;iénce with theiiiservice Rules. it was submitted by the respencient '"".*:i.".'A"«stating theft those two files were sent to the Deputy of Town Planning and that he is maintaining ': I'i'i{f:*l;e than 5o,ooo/- records in the Record Room and {Y he is innocent of the alleged offence and he isfinot responsible for missing of the files. requested the authorities to drop the Enquiry Officer was appointed enquiry was conducted. The .lEnqijiry"--£)fficer V' _the conciusion that there waevi'i'ne'gl1iVgence:_uon the part of the respondent files; The disciplinary authority respondent passed an __ from service.
challenging Petition No.2030/2003 was filed by ' 5 V:"f'vhe_ §ee'rne<3___l3udge after hearing the parties V"*£3n'S'e~to--v.th~e:V'con«clusion that the respondent cannot be fOIili\d"f3U.lt'.V';fi_5il.¥1V'POI' the missing of files. Even if such files are rnissing since there were no malafides alleged hirn does" not can for levy of penalty of ' ..__"V':vfgr:':1inat%on from service. Accordingly he ellewed the 6*' to accept the arguments of the learned ceunsel for the appeiient in View of the evidence of one Sri Muninageppa, the Assistant Executive Eng,.ine_er, whe has been examined as D.W.1 before Officer. According to Muninagep_p.e,__ herheie.1i"_tii'rected.t:V': '* the appeliant herein to hand oveijtrae fiies._t'e an instruction given by him'thfe...fiie§'-hed _he,en.1;hven<:iedu 'V L' over to him. He in turnhadV.hen'de'd.._nve'r" the seme to the Deputy Director of1kTe?_¢'vn' he does net know whether V'oii~;i"ewn Planning handing evewr .' to the respondent. If Muninagappap' .vh'aci'4V't1.¢'oi:i'ected the files from the ._resp:e§nqentVVp_aneA"inturn if he had entrusted the fiies to V."-v.tn.e"':l§i--rector's office unless and until it is preyed in.th"e:enquiry that from the Deputy Direr:tor"s "~..»r_'_'£,)ffice thefiies were in fact sent to the respondent and respondent had acknowledged the same, it pannot be new that the flies were infect under the we custody of the respondent. The appeiiant havingfnot challenged the evidence of Muninagappag~~~--E}',iIi§f}'i seriously and having not taken action aga.in4$t.,v£9i--.:\}V.1i"' as rightly pointed out by the imposition of penalty of termi.natin"n_' Fromy»v§{%}.iyo¢ harsh and pricks the of" lfitouit.
Therefore, we do not interfere with the order of one The appeai is ____ .. "
Judge ,, yyyyy sd/... Judge