Back
S. G. PANDIT, C. M. POONACHA
State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secretary – Appellant
Versus
H. S. Kanthi, W/o. K. H. Yogesh – Respondent
ORDER :
S.G. Pandit, J.
The State and its authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 04.01.2018 in Application No.6122/2014 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) by which, penalty of dismissal is substituted by penalty of compulsory retirement.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that:
The respondent was working as Typist in the third petitioner office and Articles of charge dated 11.01.2010 was issued against one Sri. Sampath Rao S. Bommannavar, Commercial Tax Officer as well as against the respondent alleging demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.300/- respectively from the complainant Sri. Ganesh Shetty and there by failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty which would be unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby committed misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) read with Rule 16 of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966 (for short “1966 Rules”). After detailed enquiry, the charges against the respondent as well as another were held proved. The first petitioner-Governmen
The court ruled that leniency in corruption cases is unjustified, and the appropriate punishment for proven misconduct is dismissal, not compulsory retirement.
Court cannot decide on the quantum of punishment to be awarded. This power exclusively lies with the appointing authority.
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
The jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority is limited, and courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a de....
The tribunal's decision to remand for lesser punishment was justified based on the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions.
Unless there exists an enabling provision either in the applicable service rules or any other provision of law it would not be open for the disciplinary authority to pass an order in respect of contr....
Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed ....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions emphasizes fairness of the inquiry and proportionality of punishment, allowing modification from removal to compulsory retirement when circumstances warrant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
