LAWS(KAR)-2006-11-78

SHIVAKUMAR Vs. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND PRINCIPAL DISTRICT

Decided On November 21, 2006
SHIVAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SINGLE JUDGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are:-The petitioner was working as a Peon-cum-watchman in the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yadgiri from the year 2003. It transpires that on 10. 12. 2003 at about 2 A M. , there was theft in the court premises when the petitioner was not at his post, since he had unauthorisedly gone home. When he returned to his post, he found that the locks had been broken at me court premises and he had informed his superiors and a criminal case was registered. In this regard, the petitioner was served with a charge memo and an enquiry was conducted. It was found that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and ultimately was removed from service. It is in the background that the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner would submit, that it is not denied that the petitioner was absent at the time that the theft had occurred. The petitioner, after having seen off the Civil Judge at the bus stand at midnight on 9. 12. 2003, had instructed a colleague, who had accompanied him to the bus stand, to stand in for him for a while at the Court premises and that he would visit his home to look up his son who was ill, and that he would get back at the earliest. However. it transpires that the colleague may not have obliged and therefore the theft had occurred at the Court premises. Notwithstanding this breach on the part of the petitioner, which v/as not disputed by him, the extreme punishment of removal from service, was not warranted, as the reasons for the petitioner's absence was prompted by circumstances and that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the act of misconduct. And therefore pleads, that on the doctrine of proportionality, the order of punishment needs to be addressed in the light of the facts ar,d circumstances, which are not in serious dispute.

(3.) THE respondent has entered appearance through the government Advocate and has filed statement of objections to contend that the petitioner was obliged to inform the presiding Officer, whose residential quarters was very much in the Court premises and this mandatory requirement was overlooked and though the theft had occurred at 3 A. M. , the petitioner did not inform his superiors till much later and this act of negligence on the part of the petitioner has been rightly dealt with by imposing the order of punishment of removal. And therefore, there is no warrant for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.