IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.5212 OF 2019(S-KAT) BETWEEN 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE SERVICES) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RANGE, BENGALURU.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.
(BY SRI I THARANATH POOJARY, AGA) AND SRI. BASHA SAB SON OF LATE JALEEL SAB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ARMED POLICE CONSTABLE-187, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE FORCE, TUMKUR, RESIDING AT MARC POLICE QUARTERS, DOOR NO. 61, BEHIND SP OFFICE, 9TH CROSS, SIT, TUMKUR – 572101.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.5514/2015 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 07.12.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.5514/2015 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, DEVDAS J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The Secretary of the Home Department, State of Karnataka has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in the application filed by the respondent herein.
2. The respondent who was serving as driver in DAR PMT division was entrusted with the duty to escort under trial prisoners to Court. A charge memo came to be issued against the respondent with an allegation that he supplied Beedi, Cigarette, Toothpaste etc., to the prisoners and took bribe from the prisoners and was therefore guilty of misconduct. In the departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the respondent herein. However, the disciplinary authority, while disagreeing with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer, issued second show cause notice with tentative findings, on the respondent herein. On considering the reply caused by the respondent herein, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of postponement of one annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect, while the period of suspension from 04.12.2010 to 22.03.2011 was treated as suspension period only.
3. The statutory appeal and the revision filed by the respondent herein were dismissed. However, the Tribunal allowed the application of the respondent, in part, by treating the suspension period as “duty period”, while the other portion of the punishment regarding increment was left unaltered. The State has questioned the decision of the Tribunal in this writ petition.
4. On going through the grounds raised in the writ petition, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE KLY/-