Sri Udaya Megalamani Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. UDAYA MEGALAMANI S/O SRI. RUDRESH N.M, AGE 33 YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER KRIDL, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION JEEGENAHALLI, NARASIMHAIAH BADAVANE, NEAR M.H. COLLEGE RAMANAGARA - 562 159 PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 707 MARUTHI CIRCLE, NONAVINAKERE TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 224.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46744 WP No. 18291 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT 3RD GATE, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDHI BHAAN, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 009 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ACHAPPA P.B, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) HOLD AND DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 57 (5) OF THE KRIDL (CADRE AND RECRUITMENT) RULES, 1996 (EARLIER LAND ARMY CORPORATION (C AND R) RULES, 1996 AS ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46744 WP No. 18291 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to challenge the provisions of Rule 57 (5) of the KRIDL (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996 (earlier Land Army Corporation (C & R) Rules, 1996) in case the respondents pass any adverse orders against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner reserved with liberty to challenge the same.

¶29

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayer:

¶30

A. Hold and declare the provisions of Rule 57(5) of the KRIDL (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996 (earlier Land Army Corporation (C & R) Rules, 1996 as arbitrary, perverse and unconstitutional.

¶31

B. Quash the Dismissal order bearing No.KRIDL/SIBBANDI/Cr-UDAYAMEGALAMANI/202526 (EV370) dated 21.05.2025 issued by the 2^nd Respondent vide ANNEXURE-J.

¶32

C. Direct the respondents to continue the services of the Petitioner in the 2^nd Respondent with all consequential service and financial benefits.

¶33

D. Consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.

¶34

The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are

¶35

as follows:

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:46744 WP No. 18291 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.2corporation. The petitioner sought to proceed against certain allegations and in this circumstance, the Executive Engineer of respondent No.2-corporation addressed a letter dated 01.08.2024 and requested necessary instructions in the matter. Thereafter, respondent No.2-corporation issued a show cause notice on 23.10.2024 to the petitioner, alleging that he holds in his custody, the materials, which were distributed to him, to the extent of Rs.1,09,42,414.35/- and that he has remained unauthorizedly absent, which will be treated as abandonment of duties. Respondent No.2-Corporation issued a charge memo on 27.11.2024. The petitioner submits that he submitted a detailed representation dated 11.11.2024 stating that the show cause notice dated 23.10.2024 was reached on 28.10.2024 and he requires 30 days' time to reply to the said notice. The petitioner was subject to enquiry and the retired District Judge was appointed as an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, based on the enquiry report, has passed orders dated 21.05.2025 vide Annexure-J. Hence, the petitioner, aggrieved by the order of dismissal, filed this writ petition.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:46744 WP No. 18291 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The respondents filed a statement of objections denying the petition averments. It is contended that the disciplinary authority, based on the enquiry report, has passed the impugned order and the order is in accordance with law. Hence, on this ground prays to dismiss the petition.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner by the enquiry officer. The petitioner could not cross-examine the witnesses. Thus the report submitted by the enquiry officer is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground, he prays to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not participated in the

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46744 WP No. 18291 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

enquiry. The enquiry officer has submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, based on the enquiry report, has passed an impugned order and the order is in accordance with law. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶50

Perused the records and considered the submissions of

¶51

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶52

There is no dispute that the petitioner is an employee of respondent No.2-corporation. Respondent No.2-corporation issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner holds in his custody, materials which were distributed to him to the extent of Rs. 1,09,42,414.35/- and that he remained unauthorized absent. The said notice was served on the petitioner on 28.10.2024, wherein the petitioner sought time to reply to the show cause notice. Meanwhile, respondent No.2-corporation appointed an enquiry officer and a charge memo was issued. The petitioner requested 30 days' time to reply to the charge memo. Respondent No.2-corporation without giving sufficient time to reply to the charge memo,

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46744 WP No. 18291 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

appointed an enquiry officer and held an inquiry against the petitioner. During the enquiry, the enquiry officer examines the witnesses. Respondent No.2-corporation examined the witnesses, but the petitioner could not cross-examine the witnesses. The enquiry officer, without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, has submitted a report. The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the enquiry report, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. Respondent no.2 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, has passed an impugned order.

¶56

From the perusal of the records, the enquiry officer has not provided a sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is an ex-parte report. A disciplinary enquiry must be conducted fairly, omitting to give the employee a chance to present the employee case or respond to evidence violates the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem , making the entire process and the resulting punishment invalid. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.C.Girotra vs. United

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46744 WP No. 18291 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Commercial Bank (UCO Bank) and others , reported in 1995 Supp(3) SCC 212 , held that they were examined by the bank to prove those documents but opportunity to crossexamine those senior officers/witnesses was not given to the delinquent. It has been held that such omission amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses by the delinquent ought to have been granted. The enquiry was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be conducted a fresh from the stage of enquiry report after opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses to the delinquent.

¶60

The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Dewan Chuni Lal reported in AIR 1970 SC 2086 , held that refusal of the right of the delinquent to examine such witnesses amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action of dismissal and the dismissal was held as not legal. Considering the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred above, the petitioner denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. Hence, the action of respondent no.2 in

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46744 WP No. 18291 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

passing the impugned order based on the ex-parte enquiry report is arbitrary and erroneous and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, the impugned order, is liable to be set aside.

¶64

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The writ petition is allowed ;

¶67

ii. The impugned order vide Annexure-J is set-aside;

¶68

iii. Respondent no.2-corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service.

¶69

iv. The matter remitted to the disciplinary authority for an enquiry, to be conducted, after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to present his case.

¶70