Karnataka Court June 2002 Judgments
H. Govindaiah Vs. Karnataka State Open University, Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ123
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. These two petitions arises an interesting question with regard to the participation of a Lecturer in the General Elections to the Loksabha. Facts in W.P. No. 22214 of 2000.--Petitioner was working as a Senior Grade Lecturer in Economics in Mysore University. On the advent of the first respondent under the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992 and after formation of the first respondent, the petitioner was appointed as Selection Grade Lecturer (Reader) in 1996. While working as such the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Registrar (Evaluation) on the administrative side in the year 1998. The petitioner is rendering honest and sincere service for several years. The petitioner is issued with a show-cause notice on 1-6-2000, Annexure-A alleging that the petitioner has contested the Loksabha Elections and he has supported a candidate of Janata Dal (S), Smt. Nagamma in Taluk Panchayat Elections. The petitioner sought for details in the matter in terms of Annexure...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Abdul R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR399]; 2002(5)KarLJ200
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16652 of 1994, dated 16-7-1997. The Single Judge has directed the appellant to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in the appellant Corporation. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows.-- One Sri Abdul Rahiman, S/o Noor Sab Nadaf was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The father of the petitioner was in the service of LIC and he died on 16-4-1993 while in service. After his death, the respondent herein (petitioner in the writ petition) approached the appellant by making an appropriate representation dated 14-6-1993 requesting for appointment on compassionate ground in the appellant organisation. The request of the respondent was rejected by the LIC by an order dated 4-10-1993. The order of the LIC read as follows.-- 'This has reference to your letter dated 21-4-1993. Your repr...
Tag this Judgment!M. Yesupadam Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR396]; ILR2002KAR3501; 2002(5)KarLJ207; (2002)IIILLJ409Kant
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This is a workman's writ appeal. 2. The facts very briefly are, the appellant was employed as a driver in the Bharat Gold Mines Limited, respondent herein. He was charge-sheeted on the allegation that he had unauthorisedly entered into the prohibited working place and was in unauthorised possession of a machine belonging to the company and that on 1-3-1985, the appellantbroke open the ventilator AC sheet and committed theft of one 5 H.P. pump motor valued about Rs. 3,500/-. The motor was ultimately recovered by the police from the house of the appellant. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of all the charges. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice with regard to the proposed punishment. Ultimately the appellant was dismissed from service. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the appellant raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 7-4-1998 field that there was no infirmity in the enquiry and the pr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. T.S. Mohana Alias Thyagarthi Mohan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ330
1. The State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal which is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-1-1997 in SC No. 25 of 1991. Of the seven accused before the Court, accused 4 has passed away and hence the appeal survives only against accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. It is relevant to point out that the learned Trial Judge had, on the basis of the reasoning and conclusions, recorded the finding that as far as accused 5, 6 and 7 are concerned, that the allegation of the prosecution was that they had instigated or abetted the accused 1 to 4. Since the evidence did not bring home this limited charge, the Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal as against them. At the stage of admission of the appeal, this Court dismissed the State appeal as against the original accused 5 to 7 and consequently, we are left with accused 1, 2 and 3. As regards these accused, it is again relevant to point out that they were charged with offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›