P. Divakar Vs. M/s. Karnataka State Pollution, Represented by its Member Secretary and Others

P. Divakar vs M/s. Karnataka State Pollution, Represented by its Member Secretary and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Mar 23, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1192650

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1192650
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee &Amp; R.B. Budihal
Decided On: Mar 23, 2017
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 204 of 2016 (S-RES)
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

High Court Act - Section 4 - Disciplinary proceeding - Appellant challenged judgment and order passed by Single Judge in two writ petitions - Hence this appeal - Court held - Single Judge rightly granted liberty to authorities to initiate disciplinary proceeding against delinquent employee - Court did not find any ...

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P. Divakar

Respondent

M/s. Karnataka State Pollution, Represented by its Member Secretary and Others

Excerpt

high court act - section 4 - disciplinary proceeding - appellant challenged judgment and order passed by single judge in two writ petitions - hence this appeal - court held - single judge rightly granted liberty to authorities to initiate disciplinary proceeding against delinquent employee - court did not find any merit in appeal - application for condonation of delay was dismissed - appeal dismissed. paras : 3,6,7,8 (prayer: this writ appeal is filed under section 4 of the high court act, praying to set aside the order passed in writ petition no.8974/2014 dated 26.11.2015.) 1. the appeal is barred by limitation. the delay is of 6 days. 2. by consent, the appeal is taken up for preliminary hearing. 3. this is an appeal against the judgment and order dated november 26, 2015, passed by the hon'ble single judge in two writ petitions. 4. a search was conducted by the lokayuktha in the office of the karnataka state pollution control board. in the course of the search, rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakh) only, was allegedly recovered from the drawer of the table of this writ petitioner - appellant. a criminal case was initiated. the criminal case was quashed. the writ petitioner insisted that as the criminal case has been quashed, he has been entitled to be reinstated. the authorities have decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding. 5. the standard of proof of the criminal case and that of the disciplinary proceedings are different. even if the criminal proceedings are quashed, the authorities are entitled to initiate disciplinary proceeding. 6. the hon'ble single judge, in our view, rightly granted liberty to the authorities to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent employee. 7. we do not find any merit in the appeal. 8. the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed. 9. in view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed. 10. we make no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.8974/2014 dated 26.11.2015.)

1. The appeal is barred by limitation. The delay is of 6 days.

2. By consent, the appeal is taken up for preliminary hearing.

3. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated November 26, 2015, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in two writ petitions.

4. A search was conducted by the Lokayuktha in the office of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. In the course of the search, Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) only, was allegedly recovered from the drawer of the table of this writ petitioner - appellant. A criminal case was initiated. The criminal case was quashed. The writ petitioner insisted that as the criminal case has been quashed, he has been entitled to be reinstated. The authorities have decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding.

5. The standard of proof of the criminal case and that of the disciplinary proceedings are different. Even if the criminal proceedings are quashed, the authorities are entitled to initiate disciplinary proceeding.

6. The Hon'ble Single Judge, in our view, rightly granted liberty to the authorities to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent employee.

7. We do not find any merit in the appeal.

8. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed.

9. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.

10. We make no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2017 Same Parties P. Divakar vs M/s. Karnataka State Pollution, Represented by ... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee &Amp;...

Right to Information