K J NINGEGOWDA Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order of suspension bearing No./Commissioner/CV 191/94-95 dated 3.5.1994 Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has further sought the issuance of the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been continued in service unaffected by the impugned order of suspension and to pay him the salary and allowances and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom; and the petitioner has also claimed a relief to the effect that the Court may pass such other orders as the Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The facts of the case in a nut shell are: as per the allegations made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto that the petitioner was working as a I Division Assistant in the Bangalore Development Authority since his appointment. According to the petitioner's case, during the year 1990 the then First Division Assistant and the Superintendent as also the Deputy Secretary of the Authority had issued Possession Certificate relating to site No. 563 of the B.T.M. Layout to one Smt. Parvathi by its Certificate vide Annexure-A. This Certificate was issued to a wrong person who claimed to be one Smt. Parvathi by putting false L.T.M.Mark in the application as also in the Certificate.

(3.) Later on according to the petitioner's case it transpired that the Possession Certificate had been given to a wrong person by the then officials of the Authority and a renewal of request application had been made by Smt Parvathi who was an illiterate and at the instance of the Authority, the Possession Certificate was given to real Parvathi in the year 1994. The facts that the Possession Certificate was issued to a wrong person, the Deputy Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority having come to know of it addressed a letter to the first respondent - The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore for taking suitable action against the persons responsible i.e., the First Division Assistant and the other officials responsible for issuing the Certificate to a wrong person are not in dispute. According to the petitioner, the opposite party issued an order of suspension dated 3.5.1994 suspending the petitioner. The petitioner has further averred in the Petition that he was not working in the said pranch at the relevant point of time and he had not received the Certificate inspite of that he has been subjected to an order of suspension and to support the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has annexed certain Orders dated 20th May 1992 and 8.5.1992 as per Annexures C and D. The petitioner's case is that he has been totally unconnected to that incident and that he is not liable in respect thereof and no enquiry need be conducted and that he was innocent of the matter. Hence the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the suspension order dated 3.5.1994 on the ground that the suspension order is illegal.