IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL WRIT PETITION NO.9/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
G.ADIVEPPA S/O G.VEERAPPA AGE: ABOUT 62 YEARS LABOUR INSPECTOR (COMPULSORY RETIRED) NO.5, “CHAITRA APARTMENT” 1ST CROSS, SREENAGAR DHARWAD-583 003 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LABOUR DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER KARMIKARA BHAVAN BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 029 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2016 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NO.14248/2002 (ANNEXURE-L) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.08.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore dismissing petitioner’s application No.14248 of 2002. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has affirmed the order dated 28.09.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Government of Karnataka) imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. Facts in brief: A disciplinary enquiry was held against the petitioner on the charge that while he was working as Labour Inspector, Udupi, on 30.10.1992 he demanded Rs.200/- as bribe from the complainant Sri Edward Sumitra (PW2), and in continuation of the said demand, he accepted Rs.200/- on 31.10.1992 as bribe from him for showing official favour. On a detailed enquiry, both charges were held proved and respondent No.1, by order dated 28.09.2002, in exercise of power under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner carried the matter to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal resulting in the order dated 20.08.2016 which is impugned herein.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the peon in the office by name, Shankar Devadiga, who was a material witness was not examined. Therefore, the finding that the petitioner demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.200/- is unsustainable in law.
5. We are unable to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the finding that the petitioner demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.200/- is based on a proper consideration of the evidence on record. The complainant was examined in the enquiry. The Tribunal has examined the matter in detail. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE HR