✦ Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Bagalkot Division, Bagalkot v. Shri Mallikarjun

Writ Petition No. 63282 of 2012HULUVADI G RAMESH

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Petition is dismissed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. The Tribunal, though held that misconduct has been proved, but has found that penalty imposed is disproportionate and accordingly, has reduced the penalty and it is not that the entire penalty has been waived off. Hence, no scope for interference. Petition is dismissed. Sd/-…

Judgment

Shri Mallikarjun, S/o Mahantesh Macha, Age: 45 years, Occ: Helper A, R/o M M Goudar House, Anand nagar, Badami, Post: Badami, District: Bagalkot. ..RESPONDENT This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the award dated 2

27.3.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli I.D.No.113/2007, which has been produced in Annexure-C. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Petitioner-Management has sought to quash the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in ID No.113/2007 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

2.

For the alleged mistake of playing cards during working hours, the respondent who was working as helper under the petitioner-Management was kept under suspension and after enquiry, the disciplinary authority has imposed a penalty of reducing the annual increment by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and also to treat the period of suspension as not on duty. On reference, the Tribunal in ID No.113/2007 by order dated 27.3.2010, has reduced the penalty to Rs.3,000/- and also directed to pay subsistence 3 allowance for the period of suspension. The same has been assailed before this Court.

3.

Heard.

4.

The Tribunal, though held that misconduct has been proved, but has found that penalty imposed is disproportionate and accordingly, has reduced the penalty and it is not that the entire penalty has been waived off. Hence, no scope for interference. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Bkp

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 63282 of 2012). ← Search more judgments