Ashok Rudragouda Patil vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 3616 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH 2022

                            BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

         WRIT PETITION NO.115485/2019 (S KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

ASHOK RUDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER, NWKRTC,
R/O: H.NO.6, SPOORTII NILAYA,
MANJUNATH NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
                                              ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI S.A.SONDUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
        N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE,
        HUBBALLI-580 020.

2.      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
        NEKRTC AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
        CENTRAL OFFICE, GULBARGA-585 101.

3.      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
        K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE,
        SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 002.
                                             ..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI AND VAISHALI KALADAGI,
ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3)
                              :2:



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION AND ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.06.2008 PASSED BY
THE NEKRTC RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-D AND ORDER
DATED 29.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC
RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO PAY WITH ADMISSIBLE INTEREST
THE   AMOUNT    HELD   BY   THE    RESPONDENTS   BY   WAY   OF
WITHHOLDING THE INCREMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR
WEEKS.


      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

An order imposing a punishment of withholding one

increment was imposed on the petitioner on 11.06.2008. The

said order was challenged by filing an appeal. The Appellate

Authority upheld the said order and dismissed the appeal on

29.01.2010. Nearly 09 years and 10 months thereafter on

13.11.2019 the present writ petition is filed challenging the

dismissal of the appeal.

2. In my view, this inordinate delay of more than 09

years and 10 months disentitles the petitioner from the

exercise of any discretion to grant the relief sought for in the

petition.

3. It may be pertinent to state here that the punishment

imposed was withholding of one increment without

cumulative effect and this punishment was accepted by the

petitioner by virtue of the fact the dismissal of the appeal was

not challenged immediately. I am therefore of the view that

there is no justification to entertain the writ petition filed

nearly 09 years thereafter in 2019.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner however relied

upon the Judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition

No.104098/2015 (S-KSRTC) disposed of on 22.03.2018 to

contend that the order of punishment imposed without

holding an enquiry was wholly illegal. It is no doubt true that

in the above writ petition this Court has held that imposition

of penalty even if it was a minor penalty, without holding an

enquiry is illegal. It is however to be stated here that in that

writ petition the factor of 09 years delay in challenging the

order of penalty imposed was not prevalent and I am

therefore of the view that the said decision can have no

application. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same

is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE CKK