Dismissed

Sri. M L Nagaraja v. Hmt Machine Tools Limited

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024WP/26913/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the withholding of increments. It held that since an efficacious remedy of appeal was available and had not been exhausted, the petition could not be entertained under Article 226 or Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner relegated to avail remedy of appeal with extension of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Sri. M L Nagaraja Vs Hmt Machine Tools Limited — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:11745 WP No. 26913 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26913 OF 2012 (S-DE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI M.L. NAGARAJA S/O LAKKANNAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS WORKERS SUPERVISOR-I, HMT LIMITED, MACHINE TOOLS, BANGALORE COMPLEX, BANGALORE- 560 013.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ( MBX) BANGALORE COMPLEX, BANGALORE- 560 013.

¶13

JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (MFG & PSB) HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, BANGALORE COMPLEX, BANGALORE- 560 013.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. VASUKI, ADVOCATE FOR

¶16

SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:11745 WP No. 26913 of 2012

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.19.07.2012, BEARING NO. HRM/10723 VIDE ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY THE R2 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW & IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of penalty withholding two increments inflicted by respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-L.

¶23

This is a second round of litigation where petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court assailing the penalty of withholding two increments. In earlier round of litigation, petitioner assailing the penalty of withholding two increments availed remedy of appeal. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the penalty inflicted by the respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority. This Court in W.P.No.14011/2011, however, set aside the order on the ground that penalty is inflicted without affording

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:11745 WP No. 26913 of 2012

¶26

opportunity to the petitioner. After remand to the respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority, an enquiry is conducted and petitioner has contested the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer has again inflicted penalty of withholding two increments and the salary is also denied for the suspension period.

¶27

On examining the records, this Court would find that the petitioner without availing the remedy of appeal has straight away approached this Court. The penalty inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be straight away tested by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If petitioner has to overcome the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, he has to seek redressal of the grievance before the Appellate Authority and not before this Court under Article 227 of

¶28

the Constitution of India. Reassessing the material on record, in the present case on hand, when there is an efficacious remedy of appeal, cannot be ventured into.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:11745 WP No. 26913 of 2012

¶31

Therefore, relegating the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal, the petition stands disposed of.

¶32

If an appeal is filed within a period of four

¶33

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the period spent before this Court shall be excluded by extending the benefit under Section 14 of Limitation Act.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri. M L Nagaraja v. Hmt Machine Tools Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M L Nagaraja v. Hmt Machine Tools Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.a.Murugeppa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Venkateshaiah Vs Union of India

Mr. B L Neelakantachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. G.V. Rajkumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Anjaneyalu B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumanthaiah M H Vs the Managing Director