S.A. SYED MAHMOOD S/O S.K. SYED AMEER Vs. KARNATAKA SILK INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING MG ROAD BANGALORE-1 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA SILK INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. 3RD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) THE controversy in the present petition turns on a narrow (sic)mpass. The petitioner was earlier before this Court challenging the order of dismiesal from employment This Court had allowed the petition by its ordor dated 3.11.2000 with an observation that the punishment imposed was disproportionate with the alleged misconduct and the respondents were directed to reconsider imposition of a lesser punishment. Since this was not completely complied with by the respondents, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by yet another writ petition in W.P.35335/02, which was disposed of by an order dated 30.3.2007 with and fresh direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made earlier, as already pointed out Pursuant to which, the present impugned order has been passed whereby the respondents have held that the petitioner shall be reinstated placing him in the minimum pay scale in his cadre without back wages and without continuity of service as an electrical supervisor and it is treated as purely a fresh appointment for all other purpose. The petitioner being aggrieved by this is before this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent, on the other band, would vehemently oppose the petition, said would submit that any such modification as prayed far by the petitioner would result in the penalty being completely nullified. This Court having held that the quantum of punishment was disproportionate but not having held that the findings against the petitioner were void and invalid the only option of the respondent is to consider the ease of the petitioner for reinstatement, treating it as a fresh appointment. Otherwise, the petitioner suffers no punishment at all. It is in this background that reliance is placed on the decision the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, JT (2007) 3 SC 1 to hold that the petitioner would not be entitled to any such benefits having regard to the fact that he was being reinstated only on the ground that the quantum of punishment was held to he disproportionate by this Court and therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed.