Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Appasaheb, S/o. Ramappa Teli – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Controller, NWKRTC – Respondent
ORDER :
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a) The Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or direction quashing the impugned orders dated 27/7/2011 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/1687/10/3585/11 Vide Annexure-C, order dated 27/6/2011 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/2613/10/3053/11 Vide Annexure-F and order dated 31/12/2010 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/1688/10/6961/10 Vide Annexure-J, all orders passed by Respondent No.1 and
b) Consequent upon quashing the impugned orders, issue necessary direction to the Respondent to consider the case of petitioner for future promotion and allot appropriate seniority number in the seniority list.
c) Issue any other appropriate Writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including as to the cost of this Writ Petition in the ends of Justice and Equity.”
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, on 01.01.1994, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) as a Conductor. On 13.09.1997, the petitioner, as an in-service candidate, applied to the post of Assistant Traffic
Minor penalties cannot be imposed without conducting an enquiry or assigning reasons for dispensing with the enquiry, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Minor penalties require adherence to procedural fairness, including an inquiry, failing which the penalty is void.
Before imposing a minor penalty, the disciplinary authority must consider the necessity of an enquiry and pass an order dispensing with the enquiry if deemed appropriate, as per Regulation 22.
Point of Law : Merely because the word ‘authority’ is used in Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 23 of C & D Regulations, that would not mean an authority by an officer in the RTC but a person who is a....
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for following the prescribed procedure, including issuing a show cause notice and conducting a departmental enquiry, before imposin....
The court emphasized that a disciplinary order must provide clear reasoning; failing this, the order is unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice.
The reviewing authority must provide adequate justification for enhancing punishment in disciplinary proceedings, adhering to principles of natural justice.
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
