Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- labour & services. dismissal from service: [subhash b. adi, j] dispensation of disciplinary enquiry - electricity (supply) act (54 of 1948) section 79 and karnataka electricity board employees (conduct, discipline, control & appeal) regulations, 1987, regulation 14 petitioner alleged to have been involved in theft - criminal complaint also lodged in this regard - however, based on same evidence criminal court held that charge of theft is not proved and also recovery is not proved by prosecution - disciplinary authority relying upon admission of criminal charge by petitioner before investigation officer and in charge sheet, passing order of dismissal held, not proper, particularly, when enquiry was dispensed with and petitioner had no opportunity before disciplinary authority. further, statement made before investigating officer cannot be treated as an admission under section 27 of evidence act. orders. rajendra babu, j.1. the petitioner is seeking for certain interim relief in a matter pending before the appellate tribunal contrary to the provisions of section 22 of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957. this court has already upheld the validity of the said provision. when that is the policy of law, question of granting stay does not arise. however, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision of this court in w.a. no. 3169 of 1963. this court has made an order on the facts and in the circumstances of that case and it does not lay down any principle of law, which could be made applicable to all cases. in that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot place reliance on that decision. petition is therefore rejected. 2. petition dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking for certain interim relief in a matter pending before the Appellate Tribunal contrary to the provisions of section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. This Court has already upheld the validity of the said provision. When that is the policy of law, question of granting stay does not arise. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision of this Court in W.A. No. 3169 of 1963. This Court has made an order on the facts and in the circumstances of that case and it does not lay down any principle of law, which could be made applicable to all cases. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot place reliance on that decision. Petition is therefore rejected.

2. Petition dismissed.