M/S Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Smt T Nalini — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Smt T Nalini — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal disposed of: impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge set aside; first punishment modified from withholding of two increments with cumulative effect to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect; absence period 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 to be treated for continuity of service without payment of salary on the 'No work, no pay' principle; pending interim applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the CCA Rules, the delinquent officer is required to be given a notice/opportunity of hearing before the Disciplinary Authority records its point(s) of disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges. +1 more

Court's answer

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the CCA Rules does not contemplate issuing any notice to the delinquent official at the stage of recording the point of disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings; natural justice is to be followed before recording the final finding on the charge after considering the delinquent's reply, which the Disciplinary Authority here did.

Ratio / Principle

Paragraph 19 of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, correctly read, does not provide for an opportunity of hearing before recording the points of disagreement; it requires conveyance of the Enquiry Officer's report and an opportunity to the delinquent officer only before the Disciplinary Authority takes the final decision, i.e., before imposing the penalty.

Key takeaways

Having considered the explicit provisions in the Rules and the judgment in Punjab National Bank, no opportunity is required to be given to the delinquent officer under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the CCA Rules at the stage of recording the points of disagreement on the findings of the Enquiry Officer on any of the charges; the learned Single Judge therefore erred in holding otherwise.ratio¶¶105
The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside.ratio¶¶106
Considering Respondent No.1's circumstances (mentally retarded grown-up daughter aged 35 years needing her care) and particularly that the Enquiry Officer did not find the charges proved, the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is shockingly disproportionate and is modified to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (per D K Singh, J), High Court of Karnataka, disposed of the Corporation's writ appeal against the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 05/08/2024 in WP No.36372/2015, which had set aside the punishment order dated 21.11.2014 on the ground that no notice was given before the Disciplinary Authority recorded its points of disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings. Holding that sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A, Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 — pari materia with sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 7 of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations 1977 — contemplates no notice to the delinquent at the disagreement-recording stage, and that the natural-justice opportunity recognized in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 (para 19), arises only before the Disciplinary Authority records its final findings/imposes penalty (which was here afforded), the Bench set aside the impugned judgment. On proportionality — the Enquiry Officer had not found the charges proved — withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was reduced to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, and the absence period 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 was directed to be treated for continuity of service without payment of salary on the 'No work, no pay' principle.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

®

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1641 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO. 16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, BEHIND AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560052.

…APPELLANT

(BY SMT. MANASI SHARMA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT T NALINI W/O T L DAYAKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RETIRED AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CORPORATION LTD., NO. 16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNGAR, BEHIND AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560052

RESIDING AT NO. 72, KHB COLONY, NEAR SRI RAMAKRISHNA VIDYAKULA SCHOOL, HOOTAGALLI, MYSURU - 570018.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF M/S KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NO. 16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNGAR, BEHIND AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560052.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; VIDE COURT OURDER DATED:17.02.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.36372/2015 AND GRANT THE APPELLANT FOLLOWING RELIEFS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.36372/2015, ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

Heard Smt. Manasi Sharma, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.

Respondent No.1/petitioner being aggrieved by the

order dated 21.11.2014 inflicting the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

forfeiting 50% of the salary for the period of compulsory retirement i.e., from 05.04.2006 to 12.01.2011 and treating the period from 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 as unauthorized absence without wages, filed W.P.No.36372/2015 after exhausting the Departmental remedies.

Respondent No.1/petitioner had joined the Office of the Corporation in the year 1986 as Junior Assistant on daily wage basis and thereafter, she was regularized as Junior Assistant in the year 1988. Respondent No.1/petitioner was on leave from 31.05.2004 to 30.06.2004. During this leave period, on 28.06.2004 she

was transferred from the Head Office of the Corporation to the District Office at Hassan. On her representation, her transfer order was cancelled and she was retained at Head Office at Bangalore.

Respondent No.1/petitioner was issued the charge sheet dated 02.09.2005 containing following charges :-

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

"1. You, Smt.T. Nalini, Junior Assistant have reported for duty in the Administration Section in the Head Office on 28-5-2004. Thereafter, from 31.5.2004 to till date, your are unauthorizedly absent from duty and have thus caused inconvenience to Office work.

2. You Smt. T. Nalini, Junior Assistant, have shown disobedience to your higher authorities by not receiving and by not obeying the Transfer Order No.KFCSC/Adm/Est/JA/2004-05/1706, dated 28/29-6-2004 and Relieving Order No.KFCSC/Adm/Est/135/PF/2004-05, dated 7/8-72004.

3. You, Smt.T. Nalini, Junior Assistant, have brought political pressure for modifying your transfer order. This amounts to misconduct under Rule 26 of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

5. The Enquiry Officer did not find the three charges proved against the respondent No.1/petitioner.

The Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry

report and recorded his point of disagreement in respect of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of all three charges. Respondent No.1/petitioner was issued

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

notice dated 07.10.2011 intimating her, the point of disagreement over the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of three charges and her response to the point of disagreement was called for. Respondent No.1/petitioner submitted her reply to the show-cause notice, after considering the reply, the show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.1/petitioner for proposed punishment of postponing of two annual increments with cumulative effect and forfeiting 50% of the salary for the period under which respondent No.1/petitioner was compulsorily retired and did not work and therefore, treating the period of absence from 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 as unauthorized absence from service, without wages.

Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment after placing reliance on the judgment in PUNJAB

NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS VS KUNJ BEHARI

MISRA reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 has held that before recording points of disagreement on the findings of the

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

Enquiry Officer on charges, the delinquent official was

required to be given a notice.

Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that since the said procedure was not followed by the Disciplinary Authority, and said aspects was not properly considered by the Appellate Authority, punishment order as well as the Appellate order were unsustainable and set aside the same, and directed the employer/appellant to pay all the benefits, which the respondent No.1/petitioner would be entitled to i.e., from the date of compulsory retirement from 05.04.2006 till she attained the age of superannuation.

It is not in dispute that employees of the Corporation are governed by the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the CCA Rules' ). Rule 11-A provides procedure for action on the inquiry report. Rule 11-A reads as under :-

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

" 11-A. Action on the inquiry report. -

(1) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 11 as far as may be.

(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.

(3) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings, on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that [one or more of the penalties specified in Rule 8] should be imposed on the Government Servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 12, make an order imposing such penalty;

Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice on the penalties

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

proposed to be imposed on the Government Servant and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government Servant."

The mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A is that if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, the Disciplinary Authority should record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Sub-Rule (3) provides that if Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings, on all or any of articles of charge(s) is of the opinion that one or more penalties specified in Rule 8 should be imposed on the Government Servant, it shall, pass an order imposing such penalty.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A does not contemplate issuing any notice to the delinquent official at the stage of recording the point of disagreement on the findings of the inquiry officer on any of the charges. Before recording

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

final finding on the charge after considering the reply of the delinquent officer, the principles of Natural Justice has to be followed and in this case, it has been done by the Disciplinary Authority. The judgment in PUNJAB

NATIONAL BANK (supra) does provide for such a course of action, where the Supreme Court has interpreted the sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 7 of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations 1977 (for short 'the PNB Regulation '). Regulation 7 of the PNB Regulation reads as under :-

" 7. Action on the Inquiry Report:

(1) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Regulation 6 as far as may be.

(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.

(3) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty.

(4) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned."

Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 7 of the aforesaid Regulation is pari materia to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (for short 'the CCA Rules' ). In paragraph

11 of the judgment in PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ( supra ), the Supreme Court has held as under :-

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

"11. The controversy in the present case, however, relates to the case where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority and acts under Regulation 7(2). The said sub-regulation does not specifically state that when the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority an is required to record its own reason for such disagreement and also to record its own finding on such charge, it is required to give a hearing to the delinquent officer."

Paragraph 19 on which the learned counsel for respondent No.1/petitioner has heavily relied on, also does not provide for an opportunity of hearing, before recording the points of disagreement. The Supreme Court has held that the report of the Enquiry Officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed to the delinquent officer, who will have an opportunity to convince the Disciplinary Authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and the principles of natural justice have to be followed before taking a final decision i.e., before imposing the penalty.

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

14. Paragraph 19 of PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (supra)

reads as under :-

"19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings.The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed. require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation, before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer."

Therefore, we are of the considered view that learned Single Judge has erred in holding that sub-rule(2) of Rule 11A of the CCA Rules contemplates providing an

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

opportunity to the delinquent officer before recording the point of disagreement on the charge(s) on the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charge(s). Having considered the explicit provisions in the Rules and Judgment in

Punjab National Bank, we are of the view that no such opportunity is required to be given to the delinquent officer under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the CCA Rules at the stage of recording the points of disagreement on the findings of Enquiry Officer of any of the charge(s).

Thus, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, considering the fact that respondent No.1/petitioner has been leading a difficult life inasmuch as she has a mentally retarded grown up daughter, now aged 35 years, and she could not focus on her service, because of the need to attend to her mentally retarded grown up daughter, the punishment inflicted on respondent No.1/petitioner for withholding two increments with cumulative effect, is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41009-DB WA No. 1641 of 2024

HC-KAR

respondent No.1, particularly when the Enquiry Officer did

not find the charges proved. Therefore, the first punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is modified to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Insofar as the third punishment is concerned, we direct that the absence period from 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 should be treated for continuity of service, without payment of salary for the said period on the principle of 'No work, no pay'.

Thus in view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interim applications, stands disposed of.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.36372/2015 dated 05/08/2024, setting aside the punishment order dated 21.11.2014 and the Appellate order for non-compliance with the notice procedure, and directing the employer to pay all benefits due to Respondent No.1 from the date of compulsory retirement (05.04.2006) till superannuation.¶¶24
High Court of Karnataka (learned Single Judge) · 05/08/2024
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 joined the Corporation in 1986 as Junior Assistant on daily wage basis and was regularized as Junior Assistant in 1988.¶¶37
Prior proceeding
She was on leave 31.05.2004 to 30.06.2004; during the leave, on 28.06.2004 she was transferred to the District Office at Hassan; on her representation the transfer order was cancelled and she was retained at Head Office, Bangalore.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet dated 02.09.2005 issued containing three charges: unauthorized absence from 31.5.2004; disobedience of Transfer Order No.KFCSC/Adm/Est/JA/2004-05/1706 dated 28/29-6-2004 and Relieving Order dated 7/8-7-2004; bringing political pressure to modify the transfer order, amounting to misconduct under Rule 26 of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
The Enquiry Officer did not find the three charges proved.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
The Disciplinary Authority recorded its point of disagreement on all three charges and issued notice dated 07.10.2011 calling for her response; thereafter show-cause notice issued for proposed punishment of postponement of two annual increments with cumulative effect and forfeiture of 50% of salary for the compulsory retirement period.¶¶52
Prior proceeding
Punishment order dated 21.11.2014 inflicted: withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Same punishment package: forfeiture of 50% of salary for the compulsory retirement period 05.04.2006 to 12.01.2011, and treatment of the period 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 as unauthorized absence without wages.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
After exhausting departmental remedies, Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.36372/2015.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
In the present appeal, by court order dated 17.02.2025, notice to Respondent No.2 was dispensed with.¶¶23