G. RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE S.K. GOVINDARAJ Vs. KARNATAKA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (A REG. SOCIETY UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960) INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY THE SPECIAL OFFICER/EXECUTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the order dated 15.07.2008 passed in W.P. No. 28326/2002, wherein, the learned single Judge of this Court has modified the order passed by the Chairman of the Executive Committee, Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology - fourth respondent, by setting aside the penalty of dismissal and has modified the penalty to withholding four increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) THE writ petition was filed by the employee of the first respondent in the writ petition averring that he was appointed as a Fellow (Information) in the year 1986. He applied for Leave Travel Concession (for short, 'LCT'), to visit Benaras for the period from 20.12.1999 to 03.01.2000. The respondents, hereinafter referred to as the 'management' sanctioned LTC, and an amount of Rs. 8,700/ - was released. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, by order dated 27.03.2000, time granted for utilization of the LTC, was extended from 03.04.2000 to 17.04.2000, failing which, it was ordered that amount advanced to him will be recovered from his salary of April 2000 and also in future, he would be allowed to avail the LTC facility only on "Reimbursement of Travel Expenditure (without advance)", after prior approval of the competent authority. On receipt of the said order dated 27.03.2000, the petitioner was left with only a week time to take up the journey. The petitioner had booked railway tickets to perform the journey by Train and he was provided with railway tickets against waiting list. However, those tickets were not confirmed even one day earlier to the date of journey. The petitioner had to make alternative arrangement to perform the journey by hiring a private vehicle and had to pay cancellation charges of the railway tickets. The petitioner completed the tour within the sanctioned period and spent amount of Rs. 15,000/ - towards up and down charges of the journey, almost double the amount he would have incurred, if he had traveled by Train. The petitioner, on returning from the journey, under the bona fide impression that he would be entitled to at least the railway fare, submitted the report of his journey enclosing the railway tickets, which were provided to him. He received the show cause notice dated 27.07.2000 stating that he had not traveled to Benares, but, had made a false claim to the LTC. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice explaining the facts narrated above and he denied the allegations made against him. However, the charges were framed against the petitioner for having lodged a false LTC., claim, and misappropriating Rs. 8,700/ -, which he had drawn as advance amount for undertaking travel to Benaras under LTC. Enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charge had been proved. The Disciplinary authority accepting the report of the enquiry officer, ordered dismissal of the petitioner from services. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal dated 08.04.2002, petitioner preferred, appeal before the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent by order dated. 28.08.2002, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which was intimated to the petitioner on 05.09.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order of discharge and the order passed by the appellate authority, the writ petition was fled for quashing the said orders.

(3.) LEARNED single Judge after 'hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and considering the material on record, by his order dated 15.07.2008, held that in view of the claim made by the petitioner in his application dated 06.12.1999, wherein, he had claimed to have undertaken journey to Benaras by Train and had produced railway tickets requesting to settle the account at the earliest and on enquiry, it was proved that the petitioner had not undertaken journey by Train and even according to the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, he had not produced any material to show that he had traveled by any alternative mode of transportation and wherefore, the charges against the petitioner had been proved. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were justified in holding that the charge of misconduct against the petitioner had been proved, However, having regard to the mitigating circumstances, the learned single Judge held that the penalty of termination of service is excessive and in view of the fact that the petitioner had challenged the promotion of one K.R. Shivakumar in W.P. No. 6539/1993 and had also questioned his transfer in. W.P. Nos. 26200 -25 of 2001, imposition of extreme penalty and other facts and circumstances of the case, Interest of justice would be met by modifying the order of dismissal to one of withholding four increments with cumulative effect and ordered that the petitioner shall be reinstated without any backwages. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge dated 15.07.2008, the respondents -management have preferred Writ Appeal No. 133 -9/2008 and the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of full back pages and continuity of service and the finding that the charges had been proved against him, has preferred Writ Appeal No. 1387/2008. Since both the Writ Appeals arise out of the some order passed by the learned single Judge, they are disposed of by this common order.