Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
SRI MANJUNATHA N – Appellant
Versus
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the dismissal stems from a complaint of harassment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural flaws in the enquiry and vague charges. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's assessment of evidence supports the disciplinary findings. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
CAV ORDER
2. One lady employee of the Corporation working in Chamaraj Nagar had filed a complaint on 29.11.2014 alleging sexual harassment at the workplace by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner vide his reply dated 03.07.2015 responded to the Articles of Charges dated 23.06.2015, denying the charges.
6. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply disputing the findings. Later, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the charges in the Articles of Charges dated 23.06.2015 are vague and do not refer to any specific incident, and without reference to any specific incident, the petitioner could not defend the vague charges, and on this ground alone, the enquiry is vitiated and the impugned orders are liable to
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
