The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a disciplinary enquiry. Finding the matter devoid of merit, the Bench held no further consideration was necessary after the Karanataka State Administrative Tribunal had already quashed the enquiry report.
The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merits.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.18508 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (BUDGET AND RESOURCES) VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY STATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT BWSSB BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560009.
….PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP)
2
AND:
( BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH RAO BHONSLE FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.8052/2014 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED:11.02.2020 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard learned Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners.
4
books of accounts. The facts also remains that the
amounts have been subsequently deposited in the accounts of the Panchayath by
Smt.M.B.Shanthakumari. Mere fact that the first respondent has abided with the directions issued by his Superior Officer and whose domain is to maintain accounts i.e., drawal and disbursement of accounts, in our opinion, he would not constitute a misconduct. The appreciation of the evidence otherwise is perverse.
being authorized to do the acts and the first respondent merely having abided by her directions, cannot constitute misconduct, if the officer concerned has thereafter misappropriated the amounts or misused the amounts. The mere fact that the first respondent had been to the Bank cannot be the ground enough to treat him on par or to hold guilty, on parity with the person has otherwise committed the misconduct.
5
5. The other charges namely, the charge No.4
pertains to drawal of Rs.24,000/- on the basis of cheque drawn in the name of the first respondent and the cheque is said to be allegedly bearing the signature of the first respondent on the rear side. At the very out set, i.e., in the reply statement to the imputation of charges, the first respondent has categorically denied the receipt of funds. That apart, he has categorically denied the signature found on the rear side of the cheque. Further, he has requested the Enquiry Officer to verify the signature also.
6
made by the Presenting Officer. We are even more disturbed by the fact that there has been no rebuttal or denial of the defence set up by the first respondent even by the Department, much less the Presenting Officer. Such an act of ignoring the specific defence cannot be appreciated.
7
material placed before him before pronouncing his verdict, i.e., finding the DGO guilty. It should be borne in mind that even a finding in a departmental enquiry can tarnish the fair name and reputation and would become stigma for all times to come.
8
demonstrates that no opportunity has been given to the first respondent and conclusion have been drawn based on the perfunctory enquiry which is contrary to Rule 11 of CCA Rules and accordingly set aside the report.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the fairness of a disciplinary enquiry report concerning alleged misappropriation has merits after the Tribunal has already quashed the report.
Whether the Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental inquiry in accordance with natural justice by ignoring the respondent's defence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Karnataka
District Controller and Disciplinary Authority
Dinesh M. Kalgutkar
Zilla Panchayat
G. Narendar
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
