IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1583 OF 2018 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR, K. H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER K.S.R.T.C., BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. ... APPELLANTS (BY MS.RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE) AND:
C. PADMANABHA S/O. CHANNAPPA. T. N., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SECURITY GUARD, KSRTC, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 12/3/2018 IN WRIT PETITION 22370 OF 2017 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE OBSERVATION MADE AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The primary contention of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition has granted the relief which the respondent is not entitled to. That in terms of the observations made in paragraphs 5 and 6, the appellants are not in a position to proceed further in the matter. However, the order of the learned Single Judge in quashing the impugned letter is not being questioned by the appellants. Therefore, it is only the observations made in paragraph 5.
2. However, on hearing we are of the view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. Allowing the writ petition is really not being contested by the appellants. Therefore, we are of the view that the findings recorded with regard to the report of the enquiring officer is a matter which was beyond the scope of the writ petition. Therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge so far as report of the enquiring officer as narrated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are hereby set-aside. However, the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition by setting aside and quashing the impugned letter dated 17.05.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent therein is sustained. Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE brn