Chandrappa C H Vs the Managing Director

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'LE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.3436/2022 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION No.3436/2022 AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶27

By filing this appeal, the appellant-original petitioner seeks to call in question the judgment and order dated 21.06.2024 of learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2624-DB WA No. 1062 of 2024

¶29

In the writ petition, the challenge was advanced by the petitioner against the order of punishment passed by respondent No.1-the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation whereby, the petitioner was warned and his suspension period was treated to be not on duty. The said order of punishment dated 09.02.2016 was passed pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry.

¶30

In not entertaining the challenge, what weighed with learned Single Judge was that the order of penalty was passed in the year 2016 and the writ petition was filed after a gap of six years in the year 2022.

¶31

The ground which was advanced before learned Single Judge namely, that there is currency of Covid-19 pandemic prevented the petitioner from challenging the order and that, the petitioner was transferred frequently from one place to another was sought to be repeated before the Court while assailing the impugned order.

¶32

The delay of six years is a long time which should be viewed as indolent on part of the litigant. When the reasons are not found

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:2624-DB WA No. 1062 of 2024

¶35

acceptable by learned Single Judge, this Court, in appeal, is not inclined to substitute its own view, more particularly, when the Covid-19 pandemic was in the year 2022 whereas, the order was passed in the year 2016. In any case, the lethargy and indolence on part of appellant is evident.

¶36