Social Icons

Friday, January 8, 2016


The petitioner is governed by clause........ Therein the authorities that could have imposed the penalty is the General Manager (Development). The authority to whom an appeal would lie is the Managing Director. The Revisional authority is the Board. It runs contrary to the Rules. The order or removal has been passed by the appellate authority and not by the authority who can pass the order of punishment.

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in N. Dasharath Wadi Versus The managing director, Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited, Bangalore, held that - In the instant case also a provision for appeal has been provided against the order of disciplinary authority. It is not the case where there is no provision for an appeal. Therefore, the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit Ghosh Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others requires to be applied to the present case. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the order of removal from service suffers from an error and a defect and consequently would have to be set aside. Under these circumstances considering the petitioner’s case so far as the merits of the enquiry report is concerned would not arise for consideration. The plea is one of an inherent error in passing the order of punishment. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the finding recorded by the Enquiry officer, the petition was allowed employee reinstated with 50% back wages from dated of removal.   
Prepared by: S. Hemanth