Sri. M. Sudarshan Vs the Appellate Authority

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22992 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M. SUDARSHAN, S/O. SRI H.L.MYLARI RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT (SDA), O/O: KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION-1, HASSAN. ALSO RESIDING AT: NEAR AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, JANATA COLONY, CHALAKERE.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSE CORPORATION, NO.43, PRIMEROSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560025.

¶13

VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2022 RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED.

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, NO.43, PRIMEROSE ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 025.

¶15

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSE CORPORATION,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶18

DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVNAGERE DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.A.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.22.10.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS SUBJECT NO.14 WHEREBY DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DTD.31.12.2020 BY IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS.94,59,055/- PASSED BY THE R-2 CORPORATION IN PURSUANCE OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD.7.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A TO C RESPECTIVELY.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing him from service and imposing penalty of Rs.94,59,055/-.

¶25

The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a security guard with the respondent No.2/corporation with effect from 25.06.1997. He was thereafter promoted as Second Division Clerk and thereafter deputed as Manager, in-charge of

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶27

Challakere Division with effect from 01.07.2017. The respondent No.2 suspended the petitioner from the post of Manager, in-charge with effect from 21.01.2020 without serving any show cause notice. He further contends that the respondent No.2 had lodged two complaints dated 04.02.2020 and 28.02.2020 with the jurisdictional police against the petitioner, alleging shortage of rice stock and non collection of storage charges from the persons who had deposited rice at the godown. He contends that the police did not take any action on the said complaints. He contends that there was an agreement between him and Mr.M Gopinath and Sri. Nanaji on 25.02.2020, regarding the payment of Rs.94,59,055-00 towards shortage of rice and towards deposit charges payable by them. After the execution of the said agreement, the respondents lodged a complaint before the Jurisdictional Police against the petitioner and Mr.M Gopinath and Sri.Nanaji which resulted in Crime No.208/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 407, 408, 409 and 420 and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC'). The respondents issued articles of charge which was duly served. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 13.05.2020 seeking

¶28

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶29

more time to reply to the charges. He later submitted his reply on 21.05.2020 stating that it was Mr.Gopinath and Mr.Nanaji, who were responsible for the shortage of stock and for nonpayment of deposit charges and that he had entered into an agreement with them, whereby they had undertaken to pay the amount. The petitioner contends that none of the documents referred to in the articles of charge were furnished to him and he therefore requested that the same be furnished. However, the respondents did not furnish any documents such as the imputation and list of witnesses to the petitioner. After the reply was issued, the respondent appointed a retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges vide order dated 18.06.2020. The respondent passed an order dated 30.07.2020, revoking the order of suspension and placed the petitioner as a Second Division Clerk at Hassan Warehouse Corporation. The petitioner was relieved from Chalakere Warehouse Corporation and was directed to report to Hassan Division –I. The petitioner thereafter took charge at Hassan Warehouse Corporation on 11.08.2020.

¶30

The Enquiry Officer commenced proceedings on 18.08.2020 but was adjourned to 28.08.2020 as the presenting

¶31

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶32

officer was absent and the petitioner sought time to engage a defence assistant. On 28.08.2020, the presenting officer was absent and the petitioner claimed that his defence assistant was unwell. Therefore the enquiry stood adjourned to 11.09.2020. The enquiry thereafter resumed on 18.09.2020 and a witness was examined as PW-1 on behalf of the respondent corporation. The petitioner contends that he sought time to cross-examine the witness and therefore the case was adjourned to 29.09.2020. On 29.09.2020, the petitioner made a statement that he has no defence statement to make and claimed that he was not responsible for the charges and prayed that he be pardoned. He prayed that the above be treated as his defence statement. Therefore, considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent corporation, the Enquiry Officer reserved for submission of his report.

¶33

The petitioner contends that while he was working as a Second Division Clerk at Hassan Division, he applied for leave for medical treatment from 14.09.2020 to 30.09.2020, which was granted. Thereafter, he again applied for medical leave on 12.10.2020 to 25.10.2020, which was also

¶34

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶35

sanctioned. The petitioner contends that the Enquiry Officer conducted the proceedings in haste, in as much as, only five hearing dates were held, out of which the Presenting Officer was not present on two dates of hearing. He contends that the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry within three dates without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and a report was submitted to the respondent corporation on 07.10.2020, stating that the charges against the petitioner was proved. The petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report along with the second show cause notice issued by the respondents. The petitioner sent his reply on 09.11.2020, seeking time to challenge the report before the competent authority. The respondent No.1 thereafter accepted the report by the Enquiry Officer and imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service and ordered recovery of Rs.94,59,055/in accordance with law.

¶36

The petitioner then challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority in an appeal before the respondent corporation, which was also dismissed in terms of the order dated 22.10.2021.

¶37

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶38

Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was in service as an In-charge Manager from the year 2017. He contends that Mr.Gopinath and Sri Nanaji were entertained in the Chalakere Warehouse Corporation even before he took charge. He therefore contends that the same arrangement continued even after he took charge. He contends that the reply to the articles of charge was on the diktat of the respondents and was not his voluntary statement. He also contends that the respondents did not take any action on the complaints earlier lodged, but belatedly took action in suspending the petitioner from service and initiating departmental proceedings. He further contends that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness who was examined at the enquiry and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. Therefore, he contends that the entire enquiry proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the finding of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is to be set at naught. He also contends that the respondent authority

¶40

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶41

did not follow the procedure prescribed for conduct of an enquiry and for imposing a major punishment.

¶42

This is however, contested by the respondents, who have filed a detailed statement of objections, contending inter alia that the petitioner had worked as an In-charge Manager of the Warehouse of the respondent at Chalakere from 01.07.2017 to 23.01.2020. They contended that as per the audit report dated 13.01.2020, the petitioner had misappropriated the rice stocks that was deposited at the Warehouse as there was shortage of stock. It was found that the petitioner had released the stock without collecting corresponding storage charges from the concerned depositors. Similarly, the petitioner had illegally released the lien stocks on which the depositors had obtained loans from various banks by pledging the warehouse receipts. Thus, it was contended that the petitioner had acted outside his authority and had misappropriated the stocks. They contend that as per audit report the petitioner had caused a financial loss to the tune of Rs.94,59,055/-. They contended that the Regional Manager, Davanagere division had inspected the godowns at Chalakere and had found that there was a huge shortage of stock. A

¶43

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶44

detailed audit for the period 01.07.2017 to 26.09.2019 was held and audit report was submitted on 13.01.2020, as per which there was (i) a shortage of 5,475 bags of rice valued at Rs.57,45,600/- (ii) storage charges for storage of 5,475 bags of rice was due (iii) the petitioner had released 8,476 bags of rice stock without collecting the storage charges from concerned depositors (iv) the petitioner had illegally released 3,011 bags of rice stock, which were pledged to the bank and loan was raised by the depositor the value which was Rs.30,05,725/-. Therefore, on the basis of the audit report, the petitioner was suspended from service on 23.01.2020. The petitioner, while replying to a show cause notice dated 26.09.2019 had admitted the fact that, he was responsible for shortage of stocks and therefore, the petitioner had admitted his folly and hence the suspension of the petitioner was justified. They also contended that the Disciplinary Authority after perusing the findings of the audit report initiated action against the petitioner, suspending him from service and for conducting a departmental enquiry.

¶45

Thereafter, a complaint was also lodged by the respondents with the Jurisdictional Police, following which, a

¶46

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶47

criminal case was registered against the petitioners and others in Crime No.208/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407, 408, 409 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶48

They denied that there was an agreement between the respondent corporation and Mr.Gopinath and Sri Nanaji regarding the payment. They contend that the agreement was entered into between the petitioner in his individual name and the said depositors. They contended that after the petitioner was suspended from service, i.e., with effect from 23.01.2020, the petitioner had entered into the agreement with the depositors on 25.02.2020. They claimed that they had no knowledge about the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the depositors and hence, contended that the validity and genuineness of the agreement was doubtful. They also contended that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and articles of charge were framed as per Rule 11 (4) of the Karnataka Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1957. The articles of charge was served on the petitioner on 04.05.2020. The petitioner had received Annexures - 1 to 4 attached to the articles of charge. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.05.2020. However, he sought additional time of 15

¶49

11 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶51

days to file his detailed reply. They also contended that a copy of the audit report dated 30.01.2020 was served on the petitioner and formed part of the list of documents attached to the articles of charge. They also contended that according to the preliminary statement given before the enquiry officer on 18.08.2020, the petitioner had accepted the receipt of documents as mentioned in Annexure-3 of the articles of charge. They contended that the charges against the petitioner were grave and therefore, sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to reply to the articles of charge. They admitted that petitioner replied on 21.05.2020. Since the Disciplinary Authority felt that the reply was not satisfactory, a retired District Judge was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. They also admitted that the petitioner was thereafter transferred to the Hassan Warehouse on 30.07.2020 and that he reported to the duty on 11.08.2020. They contend that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with procedure prescribed and that the petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 18.09.2020 along with his representative and requested the Enquiry Officer to record his statement and conclude the enquiry on the same day. The petitioner did not

¶52

12 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶54

challenge the statement made by PW-1 and submitted that he would place his defence statement on the next date of hearing. Consequently, the case was adjourned to 15.09.2020. The petitioner did not file any defence statement but contended that he did not commit any mistake and that he should be pardoned.

¶55

It is contended further that after the Enquiry Officer was satisfied that the charges against the petitioner were proved, a report was submitted on 07.10.2020. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 09.11.2020, requesting time to challenge the findings of the Enquiry Officer. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon his statement on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Though the petitioner was granted enough time, he did not submit any reply to the second show cause notice. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner thereafter challenged it before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed. They therefore contend that there was no procedural lapse in the conduct of the enquiry or in the conduct of the proceedings by the Disciplinary

¶56

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶57

Authority. They also contend that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

¶58

The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above contentions and contended that the petitioner was responsible for financial loss to the tune of Rs.94,59,055/-. He contends that the petitioner was In-charge Manager of Chalakere Warehouse and was responsible to ensure that the stocks that were brought in by the depositors were intact. However, the petitioner was responsible for the release of 5,475 bags of rice and had released 8,476 bags of rice without collecting the storage charges from the concerned depositors. He had also released 3,011 bags of rice which was pledged with the bank on which loan was obtained by the depositors. The petitioner therefore indulged in fraudulent financial activities resulting in a loss to the tune of Rs.94,59,055/-. He further contends that the petitioner has not disputed any of the charges levelled against him, but he has contended that he had absolute faith in the depositors, namely Mr. Gopinath and Sri.Nanaji. He submitted that even at the enquiry, the petitioner admitted his mistake and requested the respondents

¶59

14 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶61

to pardon him for the mistake committed. He therefore contends that the petitioner was responsible for the loss caused and therefore, the respondents felt it appropriate to impose a

¶62

major punishment of dismissal from service.

¶63

I have considered the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶64

The petitioner was appointed as an In-charge Manager of the Warehouse of the respondent at Chalakere between 01.07.2017 to 23.01.2020. The audit of the stock of the godown was conducted, which revealed a huge shortage of stock. The petitioner who was the person In-charge of the godown was therefore suspended from service and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The articles of charge against the petitioner contained the following charges:

¶65

Charge No.	Charge Description	Financial Loss in Rs.
1.	Shortage of 5475 rice bags stored by various depositors.	57,45,600/-
2.	Non collection of storage charges for 5475 rice bags stored by various depositors.	3,03,488/-
3.	Non collection of storage charges for 8476 rice bags stored by	4,04,242/-

¶66

15 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶68

	various depositors.
4.	Shortage of 3011 rice bags stored by various depositors.	30,05,725/-
	TOTAL	94,59,055/-

¶69

The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charges on 21.05.2020, which reads as follows:

¶70

"DgÉÆÃ¥À £ÀA.1 PÉÌ GvÀÛgÀ : - JA.UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀ JA§ gÉÃªÀtÂzÁgÀ£ÀÄ gÁdå GUÁæt UÉÆÃzÁªÀÄÄ ZÀ¼ÀîPÉgÉAiÀÄ°è vÀÄA¨Á ¢ªÀ¸À¢AzÀ £ÀA©PÀ¸ÀÛ£ÁV ªÀå¥ÁgÀzÀ ªÀ»ªÁl£ÀÄß £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 2014 £ÉÃ ¸Á°¤AzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉ«UÀÆ £ÀA©PÉ, «±Áé¸À¢AzÀ GUÁæt ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÉÆA¢UÉ CQÌ ¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀ»ªÁl£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV £ÀqÉ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. F ¸ÀAzÀzsÀðzÀ°è DPÀ¹äPÀªÁV £À£Àß£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹, GUÁætzÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀæ»¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, 5475 aÃ® 136.875 ªÉÄnæPï l£ïUÀ¼À CQÌ ¸ÀgÀPÀ£ÀÄß ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀgÀQ£À ¨ÁrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÁV ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¨ÁrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrvÛÃ£É ÉAzÀÄ w½¸À®Ä GUÁæt ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ£ÁzÀ £À£ÀUÉ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæÃºÀ, ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É, EzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj ªÀÈwÛUÉ ºÁUÀÆ WÀ£ÀvÉ UËgÀªÀ ©lÄÖ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ ±Á«ÄÃ¯ÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶71

(underlining by Court)

¶72

DgÉÆÃ¥À £ÀA.2 PÉÌ GvÀÛgÀ:- ²æÃ JA UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀ CQÌ ªÀå¥ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¤UÀªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÀAUÀæºÀ, ±ÀÄ®ÌzÀ ºÀt gÀÆ.3,03,488/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ §¼À¹PÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. GUÁæt ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1961 gÀ PÀ®A 16 gÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£À£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ JA UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀ CQÌ ªÀå¥ÁjAiÀÄÄ

¶73

16 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶75

gÀÆ.3,03,488/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ²æÃ JA UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ CtÚ £Á£Áf EªÀj§âgÉ ºÉÆuÉUÁgÀgÁV ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆuÉUÁgÀ£À®è. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj UÁæºÀPÀgÉÃ zÉÆÃµÀgÉÆÃ¥Àt DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ «£ÁB £Á£ÀÄ zÉÆÃµÀgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖUÉ CºÀð£ÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶76

(underlining by Court)

¶77

DgÉÆÃ¥À £ÀA.3 PÉÌ GvÀÛgÀ:- ²æÃ JA.¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï UÀÄªÀiÁ¸ÀÛgÀÄ gÁdå GUÁæt ZÀ¼ÀîPÉgÉ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/07/2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ GUÁæt ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÁV PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¹PÉÆAqÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ²æÃ JA UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀ CªÀgÀ CtÚ £Á£Áf F E§âgÀÄ MlÄÖ 8476 CQÌ aÃ®UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁlªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀgÀPÀ£Äß 25 GUÁÀ æt gÀ²ÃzÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀAUÀæºÀt ±ÀÄ®ÌzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.4,04,242/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÁrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀzÉ £À£Àß PÀtÂÚUÉ ©Ã¼ÀzÀAvÉ ªÀAa¹, £É¥ÀªÉÇrØ ¸ÀzÀj 8,476 ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÀ JA ¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï£ÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆuÉUÁgÀ£ÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶78

(underlining by Court)

¶79

DgÉÆÃ¥À £ÀA.4 PÉÌ GvÀÛgÀ :- ²æÃ JA ¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ F »AzÉ ²æÃ JA UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀ 3156 CQÌ aÃ® 78,900 ªÉÄnæPï l£ï ZÀ¼ÀîPÉgÉ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ «ªÀzsÀ UÉÆÃzÁªÀÄÄUÀ¼À°è CQÌ ¸ÀgÀPÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ²æÃ JA UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀgÀªÀgÀÄ 8 GUÁæt gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À¤ßAzÀ §gÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj GUÁæt gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß oÉÃªÀtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¨ÁgÀzÉ D£ÀAvÀ ¸ËºÁzsÀð ¸ÀºÀPÁj ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ ZÀ¼ÀîPÉgÉ E°è ¸ÀzÀj 8 gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß CqÀ«lÄÖ gÀÆ 2,20,000/- UÀ¼À ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀgÀPÀ£ÀÄß ²æÃ JA UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ

¶80

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶81

¸ÀgÀQ£À ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁr ¸ÀgÀPÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ªÀÄÆ® gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¨ÁrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£ÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ EzÀgÀ°è 8 ¨ÁAqïUÀ½AzÀ 3010 CQÌ aÃ®UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸À» ºÁQ, ¸ÀAUÀæºÀt ±ÀÄ®ÌªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ., G½zÀ 145 aÃ®UÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÆÃzÁ«Ä£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. EzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀ£À®è. JA.UÉÆÃ¦£ÁxÀ£ÉÃ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É".

¶82

(underlining by Court)

¶83

A retired District Judge was appointed as an Enquiry officer and the first proceeding of the enquiry was held on 18.08.2020. The enquiry was then adjourned to 28.08.2020, following which it was adjourned to 11.09.2020. It appears that on 18.09.2020, the respondents examined PW1 and marked Exs.P.1(a) and P.2. The presenting officer gave up the other witnesses mentioned in the list of witness and closed it. The petitioner insisted the Enquiry Officer to conclude the proceedings on the same day and claimed that it would not be possible for him to come again for the enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry was posted in the afternoon session. The petitioner did not cross-examine PW-1. However, he led his evidence and submitted that he would furnish his defence statement on the next date of hearing. Therefore, the enquiry

¶84

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶85

stood adjourned to 29.09.2020. On 29.09.2020, the petitioner submitted that he had no defence statement and claimed that he was not responsible for the allegations made against him and prayed that he may be pardoned. He also claimed that the depositor Mr.Gopinath had deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

¶86

(Rupees Four Lakhs only). The Enquiry Officer granted opportunity to both the petitioner and the respondents to address arguments. Following this, he reserved the case for submitting his report. The Enquiry Officer after considering the evidence on record and the non cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the respondents held that all the charges against the petitioner were proved. The Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and called upon the petitioner to show cause against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner did not submit his reply, following which, the Disciplinary Authority felt it appropriate to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order dismissing the petitioner from his service.

¶87

As stated supra , the petitioner was In-charge Manager of the Warehouse of the respondent and was therefore responsible to ensure the safe keep of the stock and

¶88

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶89

also to ensure regularity in the operation of the business of the Warehouse. The petitioner does not dispute that there was a shortage of stock in the godown. He has also not disputed that large quantity of rice, which was pledged with the bank was stored at the corporation, which were released. He also did not dispute that the depositors had failed to pay the storage charges to the corporation but were allowed to remove the rice bags from the warehouse. The petitioner cannot contend that all these illegalities happened on account of sheer faith and belief that he had in the depositors namely Mr.M.Gopinath and Sri.Nanaji. If the petitioner entered into some agreement with Mr.M.Gopinath and Sri.Nanaji, after he was suspended from service, he had to pursue the same against those people. However, the fact remains that there was a huge shortage of stock from the corporation, which was admitted but not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had lost the confidence of the respondents and was not entitled to be continued as an employee of the respondents. This was indeed a case of fence eating the crop and the petitioner who was responsible for maintenance of the stock, had allowed the depositors to remove large quantities of

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:10404 WP No. 22992 of 2021

¶91

20 -

¶92

rice without following the manual prescribed for release of such stock. Therefore, the respondents were justified in dismissing the services of the petitioner. This writ petition lack merits and

¶93

hence, is dismissed .

¶94

Sd/-

¶95

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶96

BKN

¶97

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri. M. Sudarshan v. the Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Sudarshan v. the Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lt.Col. T Thirupathi (Retd) Vs the Union of India

Smt. B. Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh B Vs the State of Karnataka

The Secretary Vs H Ranganath

Dr. L.N. Girijadevi Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Venkatareddy Y B Vs Union of India