2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 49410
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.1433/2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT.T.M.DECHAMMA
W/O SRI.P.B.ARUMBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS STENOGRAPHER
(NOW ILLEGALLY DEMOTED AS TYPIST)
OFFIC EOF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KODAGU
AND RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.24
THYAGARAJA COLONY, MADIKERI
COORG DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SURYANARAYANA BHAT.M., ADV.)
AND:
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KODAGU ZILLA PANCHAYATH
MADIKERI AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
COORG DISTRICT-571201.
&RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.T.I.ABDULLA, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONER; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2015 AT
ANNEXURE-V ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS THE SAME IS
VIOLATIVE
OF
ARTICLES
14,
16
AND
21
OF
THE
CONSTITUTION; AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
The petitioner, a Stenographer working in the
respondent-Kodagu Zilla Panchayath is before this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
questioning the correctness and legality of order bearing
No.
¸ÀAPÉÆ.f.¥ÀA:DqÀ½vÀ:1:183:2012-13
dated
02.01.2015
(Annexure-V)
whereby
the
petitioner
is
imposed
punishment of demotion from the post of Stenographer
to Typist and for a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to grant all the consequential benefits upon
quashing the impugned order.
2.
Heard
the
learned
counsel
Sri.M.Subramanya Bhat for the petitioner and the
learned counsel Sri.T.I.Abdulla for the respondent.
3.
Learned counsel Sri.M.Subramanya Bhat
submits that by virtue of the interim order dated
22.01.2015, the petitioner continued to work as
Stenographer in the respondent-Zilla Panchayth and
impugned order of demotion is not given effect to. It is
3
submitted that the petitioner was appointed on
03.07.1989
on
daily
wages
basis
as
typist.
Subsequently, the petitioner9s services were regularized
in the post of Typist on 03.07.1999 by the respondent-
Zilla Panchayth. The petitioner is said to have passed
senior short hand examination conducted by the
Karnataka Secondary Education Board (for short Board)
on 26.08.2007. On passing the senior short hand, the
petitioner requested respondent-Zilla Panchayth to
record her qualification in the service register and to
consider her case for promotion to the cadre of
Stenographer. Taking note of the qualification of the
petitioner, the respondent-Zilla Panchayth by order
dated
16.05.2011
promoted
the
petitioner
as
Stenographer. Subsequent to the promotion of the
petitioner
as
Stenographer,
the
respondent-Zilla
Panchayth received a complaint stating that there is a
correction in the marks card produced by the petitioner
with regard to her date of birth which is not genuine
correction by the Board. Based on the said complaint,
4
the respondent-Zilla Panchayth initiated enquiry by
issuing
Charge
Memo
dated
29.11.2014.
After
conducing the enquiry, the petitioner was imposed
punishment
of
demoting
her
from
the
post
of
Stenographer to Typist by order dated 02.01.2015.
Challenging the said order of punishment, the petitioner
is before this Court in this writ petition.
4.
Learned counsel Sri.M.Suryanarayana Bhat
would submit that totally four charges were leveled
against the petitioner and Charge Nos.2 and 3 are not
proved, whereas the Enquiry Officer held Charge Nos.1
and 4 partly proved. Learned counsel would submit that
the correction in the marks card issued by the board
was genuine and subsequently fresh marks card is
issued by the Board with regard to Commerce
Examination. Learned counsel would submit that there
is no material or evidence on record to hold that Charge
Nos.1 and 4 are proved. It is also submitted that it is a
bonafide mistake, there is no dispute with regard to
possessing qualification of passing senior short hand.
5
Learned counsel moreover contends that correction of
date of birth in the Commerce Examination Certificate
issued by the Board would have no relevancy since the
date of birth would be looked into by the respondent-
Zilla Panchayth for all other purposes as mentioned in
the SSLC marks card issued by the Board. He also
submits that the Board has issued corrected marks
card of Commerce Examination which indicates proper
date of birth. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ
petition.
5.
Per contra, learned counsel Sri.T.I.Abdulla
appearing for the respondent-Zilla Panchayth submits
that the impugned order itself makes it clear that if the
petitioner produces the documents before the Zilla
Panchayth, the same would be looked into and a fresh
decision would be taken. It is submitted that without
submitting the documents such as corrected fresh
marks card issued by the Board, the petitioner is before
this Court. He submits that in terms of the impugned
order, if the petitioner submits the corrected fresh
6
marks card, the respondent-Zilla Panchayth is bound t