IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.7482 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI H.S.NAVEEN S/O SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION BENGALURU. ... PETITIONER (By Sri BALAKRISHNA.M.R, ADVOCATE -ABSENT-) AND:
1. THE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN NRUPATUNGA ROAD RANICHENNAMMA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON 2. THE CHAIR PERSON THE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS 4TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN NRUPATUNGA ROAD RANICHENNAMMA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560002.
3. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE, FOR R1 and R2 –ABSENT-; Notice to R3 held sufficient and represented by Sri Y.D.Harsha, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.01.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-M.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 remained absent.
2. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner interalia has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.01.2016 passed by Respondent No.2 by which the Chair Person, the Commission for Protection of Child Rights has recommended Respondent No.3 to deduct Rs.20,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and further to deduct one increment from his salary during his service period.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that infact the impugned order dated 07.01.2016 is not an order but only a recommendation made to the competent authority and the competent authority shall take the said action in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the communication dated 07.01.2016 sent by Respondent No.2 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to take a decision with regard to the recommendations made by Respondent No.2 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dh