MAHENDRARAJ UBHALE Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has called into question the order dtd. 29/1/2007 vide Annexure-C imposing penalty by the respondent in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. He has also challenged the consequential endorsement issued by the respondent vide Annexures-D dtd. 4/1/2010 and Annexure-F dtd. 30/6/2010.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a charge man in respondent " "Corporation. A departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure-A dtd. 22/12/2006. The respondent has issued articles of charges. Pursuant to that, vide Annexure-B dtd. 22/1/2007, the petitioner has given a reply. On considering the reply of the petitioner the impugned order Annexure-C is passed on 29/1/2007 imposing penalty of Rs.500.00. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dtd. 30/6/2010 vide Annexure-F has confirmed Annexure-C and dismissed the appeal and also subsequently, petitioner's promotion has been denied on the ground that departmental enquiry and penalty has been imposed. To that effect, Annexure-D dtd. 4/1/2010 has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has imposed a minor penalty as per Regulation 22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short, 'Regulation'). Before imposing penalty the respondent ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner. Without giving such opportunity penalty has been imposed. The same is contrary to Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1971. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1996 Kar.3409 in the case of THE MALLESWRAM LADIES ASSOCIATION vs. H.N.CHANNAIAH.