Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 588 (KAR)

M. VENKATAPPA v. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

2005-09-12

B.S.PATIL

body2005
( 1 ) PETITIONER has challenged the articles of charges dated 19-4-2001 issued to him vide Annexure-E by the 2nd respondent and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereon. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as an Education Officer in the 1st respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging that he failed to follow the prescribed rules and procedures in awarding contract for supply of ties because of which article of charges dated 13-3-2000 came to be issued and an enquiry was conducted. The allegations made against the petitioner were: (a) that he failed to verify whether the firm Roopa Enterprises in whose favour the contract was awarded possessed KST and CST registration; (b) that he failed to invite tenders for the supply of ties though the amount involved was more than Rs. 10 lakhs; (c) that the petitioner did not take the approval of the commissioner for issue of quotation and did not take technical opinion regarding the quality of the ties. ( 2 ) COPY of the charge-sheet is produced by the petitioner at annexure-B. Petitioner gave his explanation to the charge-sheet. One sri P. Gopalakrishna, Retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer and departmental enquiry was conducted in which chief Accounts Officer was examined as a witness on behalf of the 1st respondent. Petitioner submitted his statement of defence and written arguments. The enquiry was concluded on 24-11-2000. It is the case of findings/report. Petitioner further submits that he has reason to believe that the findings have gone in his favour. However, without taking action on the basis of the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, the respondents have proceeded to issue another charge-sheet dated 19-4-2001 terming it as an additional charge-sheet, copy of which is produced as Annexure-E. In the said additional charge-sheet, the same allegations as contained in the first charge-sheet are reiterated. Petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge-sheet questioning the validity of the issue of additional charge-sheet in respect of the very allegations for which an enquiry is already held. Without considering the reply, the 1st respondent has appointed another Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the additional charges framed. Office order dated 19-7-2001 appointing another Enquiry Officer is produced at annexure-G. When the Enquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner of the fresh enquiry proceedings, petitioner has approached this Court. Without considering the reply, the 1st respondent has appointed another Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the additional charges framed. Office order dated 19-7-2001 appointing another Enquiry Officer is produced at annexure-G. When the Enquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner of the fresh enquiry proceedings, petitioner has approached this Court. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the initiation of second enquiry on the basis of the same charges, after the first enquiry was held and the findings recorded is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submits that the second charge-sheet reiterates the charges levelled against the petitioner in the first charge-sheet in respect of which the enquiry is already conducted. Instead of completing the enquiry, a fresh enquiry is sought to be initiated which is impermissible as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which are adopted by the 1st respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents however submits that the respondent-Corporation is entitled to hold a fresh enquiry and as long as fair and reasonable opportunity is given to the petitioner, he cannot have any objection. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, it has to be noticed that admittedly a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 13-3-2000 alleging several irregularities in respect of placing orders regarding supply of ties in favour of M/s. Roopa enterprises. The Enquiry Officer Sri P. Gopalakrishna, Retired District and Sessions Judge appointed for this purpose has completed the enquiry and submitted his findings/report to the respondents. Petitioner has participated in the enquiry wherein the management has lead its evidence. Report of the Enquiry Officer is forwarded for further action to the Disciplinary Authority. At this stage, the Disciplinary Authority without taking any action in accordance with law, on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, has proceeded to serve another charge-sheet on the delinquent in respect of the same charge and has ordered for enquiry to be conducted by appointing another Enquiry officer. There is absolutely no sanction in law to take recourse to such an action. Disciplinary Authority is entitled, after the receipt of the report from the Enquiry Officer, to examine the matter and to either agree with the findings recorded and accept the same or to disagree. There is absolutely no sanction in law to take recourse to such an action. Disciplinary Authority is entitled, after the receipt of the report from the Enquiry Officer, to examine the matter and to either agree with the findings recorded and accept the same or to disagree. In the event the Disciplinary Authority intends to disagree with the findings recorded and wants to come to a contrary conclusion, he is required to issue notice to the delinquent notifying him of the tentative reasons why he intends to disagree with the findings recorded. If for any reason, the Disciplinary Authority comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is vitiated on account of certain illegalities committed, procedural or otherwise in the conduct of the enquiry he can set aside the findings and remit the matter back to the same Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry afresh from the stage where the defects are noticed. None of these legal options are adopted by the Disciplinary Authority. He has embarked upon initiating fresh enquiry by appointing another enquiry Officer, that too by issuing a fresh charge-sheet pertaining to the same allegations. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that such a recourse is not permissible. Reliance placed on rule 11-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1957, in this regard is apposite. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the action of the Disciplinary Authority in issuing fresh charge-sheet terming it as an additional articles of charges on 19-4-2001 vide Annexure-E cannot be sustained and all further proceedings pursuant thereon also deserve to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following.- order the additional article of charges framed on 19-4-2001 vide annexure-E and proceedings conducted thereon are hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the Disciplinary Authority to take action in accordance with law on the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted in respect of the article of charges for which disciplinary enquiry was conducted by Sri P. Gopalakrishna. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms stated above with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .