This Bench dismissed the writ petition as premature. It held that an inquiry report or Up-Lokayukta recommendation does not abridge service rights or create a cause of action before the Disciplinary Authority records its own views or passes a final order.
Writ petition stands disposed of as being premature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
WRIT PETITION NO.105882 OF 2019 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN
SHRI. B. Y. NILUGAL, AGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
M S BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT NO.LOK/INQ/14-A/ 425/2012/ARE-7 DATED 09.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND QUASH THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE NO.LOK/INQ/14-A/425/2012/ ARE-7 DATED 11.10.2018 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C; CONSEQUENTLY, TO QUASH THE NOTICE NO.KGRM/ ADALITH/C.SHA.1/P.R/18-19 DATED 04.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
particular penalty, as neither the inquiry report nor the recommendation in any manner abridges or alters the service conditions or the rights of the petitioner in any manner.
copy thereof along with a copy of the inquiry report and the recommendation of Upa-lokayukta to the delinquent employee and shall afford him an opportunity to file his say against the tentative reasons of the Disciplinary Authority.
incompetent authority or is in violation of any statutory provision. On the contrary, the provisions pre-supposes a show cause notice pursuant to the inquiry report that may be submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and affording of an opportunity and hence, the instant writ petition impugning the show cause notice, in our opinion, is pre-mature as no cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to move this Court.
Sd/JUDGE
yan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the submission of an inquiry report and the recommendation to impose dismissal by the Up-Lokayukta creates a cause of action for a writ petition.
Whether a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued subsequent to an inquiry report is premature.
Whether the disciplinary authority has the liberty to disagree with inquiry findings and is the time for challenging the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority's final order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shankarappa v. Karnataka Power Transmission LimitedFollowed¶30
Shankarappa v. Karnataka Power Transmission Limited, ILR 2017 KAR 5487 · Who else cites this
SHRI. B. Y. NILUGAL
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
COMMISSIONER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
G. NARENDAR
BELLUNKE A.S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
