Smt A S Geethanjali vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 75 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

                          AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA


        WRIT APPEAL NO.3875 OF 2019 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SMT.A.S.GEETHANJALI
WIFE OF MANJUNATHA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
STATISTICAL OFFICER
KSRTC, CHAMARAJANAGARA DIVISION
MYSURU
RESIDING AT NO.123
4TH MAIN, C.V.ROAD
BANNIMANTAP LAYOUT
MYSURU-570 015.
                                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI:MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
       K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
       BENGALURU-560 027.

2.     THE DIRECTOR (P&E)
       KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
       K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
       BENGALURU-560 027.
                           2



3.   SRI.B.JAYAKUMAR SHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     WORKING AS STATISTICAL OFFICER
     KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION
     PUTTUR-574 210.

4.   SRI.H.GURURAJA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     STATISTICAL OFFICER
     KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
     SYSTEM DEPARTMENT
     BENGALURU-560 027.

5.   SMT.M.SWARNALATHA
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     WORKING AS STATISTICAL OFFICER
     KSRTC, MANGALORE DIVISION OFFICE
     MANGALORE-575 004.
     PRESENTLY WORKING AT
     KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
     BENGALURU-560 027.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT: H.R.RENUKA ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
      R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED)



     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.18963/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION NO.18963 OF 2014 FILED BY THE APPELLANT
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.


     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING   THIS   DAY,   M.G.UMA   J.,   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                               3




                      JUDGMENT

Though there is a delay of 13 days in filing the

appeal, we have heard Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, learned

Counsel for the appellant and Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on merits of the case

with their consent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant

was appointed as Assistant Statistical Officer vide order

dated 27.03.2006. It is stated that disciplinary proceeding

was initiated against her and 'sealed cover procedure' was

adopted in her case while promoting her fellow employees.

The disciplinary proceeding was concluded, finding that the

appellant was guilty of causing loss of Rs.6,000/- in

purchase of certain materials and the said amount was

recovered from four of the employees who were held

responsible under the domestic enquiry. After conclusion

of the domestic enquiry and recovery of the amount as

aforesaid, the appellant was promoted to the higher cadre

i.e., Assistant Statistical Officer, Class-II on 24.12.2011.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that she

should have been considered for promotion with effect

from 22.06.2011 on par with her fellow employees who got

promoted during the pendency of the domestic enquiry

initiated against her. Therefore, a representation was filed

to consider her request for restoration of her seniority on

par with her fellow employees who were much lower in

ranking in the seniority list, but her request was turned

down by issuing an endorsement dated 16.03.2013 which

was assailed by the appellant by filing the writ petition.

4. The appellant assailed Annexure-A by filing

Writ Petition No.18963 of 2014 (S-KSRTC). On considering

the merits of the case, the writ petition came to be

dismissed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned

in this appeal.

5. The admitted facts of the case are that, the

appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Statistical

Officer and was promoted as Assistant Statistical Officer,

Class-II with effect from 24.12.2011. In the meantime,

her fellow employees were promoted on 22.06.2011 and

'sealed cover procedure' was adopted in the case of the

appellant as the domestic enquiry regarding misconduct

committed in causing loss to the Institution was pending

for consideration. In the domestic enquiry, it was found

that the appellant was guilty and the loss caused was

recovered. Her representation for promotion was

considered and subsequently, she was promoted.

6. Now the short point for consideration is,

'whether the appellant is entitled for restoration of her

seniority on par with her juniors who were promoted on

22.06.2011?'

relied on Clause-8 of the Circular bearing No.1328 dated

04.04.2005 concerning the Corporation, according to

which, if any penalty is imposed on the officer/official as a

result of disciplinary proceedings, the findings in the sealed

cover shall not be acted upon.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant did not

dispute this Circular. However, he contended that similarly

placed official by name Sri.P.Yeshwanth Kumar who also

suffered punishment of recovery of fine has been

considered for promotion and therefore, on parity, the

appellant is also entitled for restoration of her seniority.

would submit that as per Annexure-H, the promotion

granted to the official Sri.P.Yeshwanth Kumar is already

withdrawn and therefore, the appellant cannot now seek

parity in the matter.

10. Under such circumstances, the appellant's

counsel cannot sustain his contentions.

11. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we

do not find any merit in the appeal having regard to

Clause-8 of the Circular No.1328 dated 04.04.2005, which

squarely applies to the case of the appellant. Hence, the

appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, IA.1 of 2019 filed for condonation of

delay also stands dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*bgn/-