Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 240 (KAR)

N. MUNIVENKATAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2001-03-13

S.N.KUMAR

body2001
KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) ISSUE rule. Though this petition is listed for preliminary hearing in "b" group, the same is heard, finally by consent of the parties and disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) IN this Writ Petition the petitioner has questioned the validity of the notice dated 2. 8. 2000 issued by the second respondent, commissioner of Corporation of City of Bangalore, as per Annexure-D by which he has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called "the KCSR Rules") on the ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings. ( 3 ) THE brief facts are as hereunder:-Petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer in charge of gandhinagar Division in the Corporation of City of Bangalore. On 2. 6. 2000 the second respondent, Commissioner of Corporation of city of Bangalore suspended the petitioner on the allegation that an expenditure of Rs. 43. 64 lakhs was incurred for repairing the road connecting Sultanpet Main Road and Mysore Road as against the sanctioned amount of Rs. 13. 10 lakhs. Subsequently on 2. 8. 2000 charges were framed on the above allegations against the petitioner as per Annexure-D and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is this action of the second respondent which is challenged in this Writ Petition on the ground that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to initiated such proceedings. ( 4 ) SRI B. B. Bajentri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner being a group "a" employee, the Commissioner of the Corporation of City of Bangalore, second respondent, has no jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and therefore he contends Annexure-D, the order initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed on that short ground. ( 5 ) SRI Ashok Harnahalli, learned Counsel for respondent-2, sought to support the impugned order. ( 6 ) THE Government of Karnataka has framed rules called the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991. Rule 4 of the said Rules make it clear that the KCSR Rules shall mutatus mutandis be applicable to the employees of the corporation excluding the persons appointed on contract basis or on daily wages, subject to the modifications specified in Schedules i and II. Rule 4 of the said Rules make it clear that the KCSR Rules shall mutatus mutandis be applicable to the employees of the corporation excluding the persons appointed on contract basis or on daily wages, subject to the modifications specified in Schedules i and II. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 provides that all words and expressions used in these rules but not defined shall have the same meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, as amended from time to time. Proviso to the said Rule states that the expressions "government Servant (s)", "head of the Department (s)", "the Government" or/and "the Governor" wherever they occur in the rules mentioned in Rule 4 of these rules, shall respectively mean "employee", "commissioner or any of his Nominee" and "government in Housing and Urban Development Department". ( 7 ) SCHEDULE II to the aforesaid Rules provides for authorities competent to impose penalties under Rule 8 of the KCSR Rules. As per the said Schedule in case's of employees belonging to Group "a", the authority competent to impose penalties is the Government. ( 8 ) RULE 2 (c) of the KCSR Rules defines the "disciplinary authority" in relation to the imposition of a penalty on a Government Servant means the authority competent under these Rules to impose on him that penalty. Rule 10a of the KCSR Rules sets out the authority to institute the proceedings. The said provision makes it clear that it is the disciplinary authority which is the competent authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against government servant. Further Rule 11 deals with procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 provides that, whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviours against a government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this Rule an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. Sub-rule (S) of Rule 11 categorically states that where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against a government servant under this Rule and Rule 11a, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. Sub-rule (S) of Rule 11 categorically states that where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against a government servant under this Rule and Rule 11a, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, from a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that in respect of employees of the Corporation constituted under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 if the said employee is a Group "a" employee the disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated by the disciplinary authority which is the Government. The said disciplinary authority may itself enquire into or appoint under rule 11 an authority to enquire into the truth of any imputation of any misconduct or misbehaviour against the employee. ( 10 ) IN the instant case the disciplinary proceedings have been in itiated by the second respondent, Commissioner of Corporation of city of Bangalore, who is not the disciplinary authority for initiating proceedings against Group "a" employee. The Government has also not appointed the Commissioner of Corporation of City of Bangalore as the authority to enquire into the truth of the imputation of misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Therefore it is clear that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent against the petitioner is one without jurisdiction and therefore the order initiating such proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following order:- ( 11 ) RULE is made absolute. The impugned order, Annexure-D,dated 2. 8. 2000 bearing No. B126 (6) PR:107:99-2000 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed only in so far as petitioner is concerned. However, quashing of Annexure-D in so far as petitioner is concerned do not come in the way of the disciplinary authority under the Rules from initiating proceedings in accordance with law. ( 12 ) PARTIES to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .