Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1979 DIGILAW 265 (KAR)

S. RAMANNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1979-11-28

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ

body1979
M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a I Division Clerk in the Industries and Commerce department of the 1st respondent- state of Karnataka. He was working in the. Office of the Director of Industries and Commerce, Bangalore, on 1-2-1974. He was served with a charge memo dated 1-2-1974 and the same was issued by the Assistant Director of Vigilance and Inquiry Officer, State vigilance Commission, Bangalore, The charge contained in the memo was as follows:"that you Shri S. Ramanna working as First Division Clerk in the Office of the Directorate of industries and Commerce, Bangalore, disposed off during August 1973, permit No- 94031 dated 1-8-1973 for 5 bags of cement issued in the name of your wife Smt. Kamalamma by the Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce, Bangalore, to one shri Dr. V. S. N. Murthy of Bilwaradanahalli after collecting from him a sum of Rs. 30 at the rate of Rs. 6 per bag and thereby committed an act which is unbecoming of a government servant in violation of rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Karnataka civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. " ( 2 ) THE charge was accompained by a statement of allegations. The Enquiry officer submitted a report. It is pertinent to state that the enquiry was a joint enquiry against the 'petitioner who belongs to Class III services under the State and another Shri Ankaiah, peon, who belongs to Class IV services under the State. In para 11 of the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer, has stated that the conduct on the part of A. G. O. 1 (the petitioner) -which was not shown to have been actuated with the oblique motive of securing pecuniary advantage for himself or his wife the permit holder, could not amount to misconduct calling for disciplinary action. In that view, he held that the charge against a. G. O. 1 had not been substantiated and accordingly he recorded a finding that charge against the petitioner, as not proved. In that view, he held that the charge against a. G. O. 1 had not been substantiated and accordingly he recorded a finding that charge against the petitioner, as not proved. In spite of this finding of the Enquiry Officer, the 1st respondent state passed an order on 3-12-1974 in no, CI 216 ACI 73 inflicting punishment specified in Clause 8 (iv-a) of the karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the rules) which entailed reduction by two incremental stages in the time scale applicable to the petitioner for a period of two years with a direction that he shall not earn increments during the said period of two years The reduction so effected, was also required to have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The operative portion of the order is extracted below for convenience:"alter examining the report of the vigilance Commission Government are pleased to award on the Accused government official No. 1. Shri S. Ramanna, First Division Clerk, Office of the Director, Industries and commerce, Bangalore, the punishment specified in Clause 8 (iv-a) of kcs (CCA) Rules, 1957, viz reduction by two incremental stages in the time scale applicable to him for a period of two years with the direction that he shall not earn increments during the period of two years and this reduction will have the effect of postponing future increments of pay- Government are further pleased to exonerate the accused Government Official No. II viz. , Shri Ankaiah, Peon, Office of the Director of Industries and commerce, Bangalore, of the charge framed against him. " ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art- 226 of the Constitution urging two grounds that the impugned order is liable to be struck down for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the Rules and further that the order was passed disregarding the evidence in his case. However, at the time of arguments, it is the first of the grounds which is pressed into service and not the second In a number of cases, the Supreme Court and 'this Court have held that in the disciplinary proceedings the requirements or sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the Rules or similar Rules of other states, is mandatory. However, at the time of arguments, it is the first of the grounds which is pressed into service and not the second In a number of cases, the Supreme Court and 'this Court have held that in the disciplinary proceedings the requirements or sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the Rules or similar Rules of other states, is mandatory. Sub-rule (2) of rule 11-A of the Rules is extracted below for convenience: the Disciplinary Authority shall. if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on 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. ( 4 ) IT has to be noticed that the impugned order extracted earlier does not make any reference whatsoever to the findings of the Enquiry Officer much less the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry officer. It is only in para 5 of the statement of objections for the respondent that an explanation is offered in the following terms:"it is submitted that the Government have considered both the report of the Inquiry Officer and the review of that report by the vigilance Commissioner. In con currence with the Vigilance Commissioner the Government disagreed, with the findings of the Inquiry officer and came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner is established for the reasons set out in the report. This is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Rule-A (2) of the karnataka Civil Services (CC and A) rules, 1957. " ( 5 ) THE 1st respondent-State cannot cure the defect in the impugned order by supplying the same in the return to be filed in these proceedings. As enjoined by sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the Rules, the reasons for such disagreement should find a place in the order itself inflicting the punishment on the delinquent Government servant. Supplying the lacuna, at a later stage in collateral proceedings, the defect is incurable. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and it is so quashed. Rule issued in this case earlier, is made absolute. ( 7 ) THE respondent-State is at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, if they are so advised. All other contentions urged by the petitioner, are left open. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and it is so quashed. Rule issued in this case earlier, is made absolute. ( 7 ) THE respondent-State is at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, if they are so advised. All other contentions urged by the petitioner, are left open. ( 8 ) THE petitioner, therefore, succeeds and is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee is Rs. 100/ -. --- *** --- .