H R RANGANATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is subjected to a disciplinary enquiry has in this writ petition, challenged the show cause notice dated 28-6-1980 (Annexure-D) issued by the disciplinary authority and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Bangalore City, requiring him to show cause within seven days why penalty of dismissal from service as proposed should not be imposed on the petitioner. The show cause notice stated that the disciplinary authority agrees with the finding of the enquiring authority and has provisionally Come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him. The second charge held provisionally proved is in respect of unauthorised absence from duty from 25-12- 1973 to 21-10-1975.

(2.) The argument of Sri M. Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that every absence from duty is not unauthorised and certain conditions have to be satisfied before absence (sic), and as that has not been done, he contended, the finding on the second charge is clearly unsustainable and that therefore the disciplinary authority is not competent to proceed with the same and impose the proposed penalty.

(3.) The prayer of the petitioner is virtually for a writ of prohibition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Bangalore City, is not the disciplinary authority in law, or that he is not competent to hold enquiry and impose the proposed penalty. That being the position, I fail to see how the petitioner can ask this Court to issue a Writ in the nature of prohibition on the grounds stated earlier.