SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top