IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.5414 OF 2017 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
THE BHARATH EARTH MOVERS LIMITED, BENGALURU COMPLEX, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BENGALURU – 75.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL) SMT. DIVYA B. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY N.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
MR.K.KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O LATE R.KANTHARAJ SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.1678, 4TH CROSS, 5TH STAGE, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2017 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 37136 OF 2012.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.37136 of 2012.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. The Learned Single Judge has committed an error by entertaining the matter pertaining to disciplinary proceedings and that the direction to the Authority to consider the matter afresh, is erroneous.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. However, on hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The sum and substance of the order of the learned Single Judge is to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for afresh consideration. Keeping in view the observations made by the learned Single Judge and under these circumstances, it is the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the matter afresh. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that it would cause prejudice to their rights cannot be accepted. It is within the limits of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter afresh and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hence, we do not find any infringement of its legal right, since the matter is remitted for a fresh consideration by the Disciplinary Authority.
5. We clarify that, none of the observations made by the learned Single Judge would have a bearing over the Authority while considering the matter.
Hence, the appeal is disposed off.
In view of the disposal of main appeal, IA.1 of 2017 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and hence, it is disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VMB