Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1729 (KAR)

Chandrashekhar v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-04

P.S.DINESH KUMAR, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2020
JUDGMENT P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J. - Revenue Officer of Town Municipal Counci l, Annigeri, has fi led this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari and to quash Enquiry report No.UPLOK-1/DE/88/2015/ARE-13, dated 27.9.2019 submitted by 4th respondent (Annexure-H) and recommendation of Upa- Lokayukta dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure-J). 2. Shri M.S. Haravi, learned Advocate for writ petitioner submitted that, No opportunity was given to petitioner to properly defend himself before the Enquiry Of ficer; Enquiry Officer was changed during the course of enquiry; Notice of such change was not given to the petitioner; and Enquiry in substance is ex-parte and based on such enquiry, Upa- Lokayukta has sent his recommendation to the Government. Therefore, recommendation made by Upalokayukta is unsustainable in law. 3. Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for State submitted that once notice is issued, delinquent off icer is required to attend enquiry proceedings on the date mentioned in the notice and all subsequent dates. In the case on hand, petitioner was served and he appeared for enquiry between 7.5.2015 and 4.8.2016. Thereafter, he has remained absent. Enquiry was concluded on 13.09.2019. Based on the said report of Enquiry Off icer, Upa-lokayukta has made his recommendation to the Government. 4. Shri G.K. Hiregoudar further submitted that since petitioner himself has chosen not to appear before the Enquiry Off icer, he cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice. As on date, no action has been taken on the recommendation of Upa-lokayukta. Therefore, this writ petition is premature. He placed reliance on State Bank of India & Others Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey, (2013) 2 SCC 740 . 5. We have careful ly considered rival contentions and perused the records. 6. After filing this writ petition, under memo dated 31.08.2020, petitioner has f i led the copy of order sheet maintained by the Enquiry Off icer. It shows that petitioner has appeared before the Enquiry off icer from 7.5.2015 to 4.8.2016 and enquiry has been concluded on 13.09.2019. Admittedly, he has chosen to remain absent after 4.8.2016 for hearings ti l l conclusion. 7. Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate is right in his submission that delinquent off icer, who chooses not to attend proceedings, cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice. According to Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, employer has not initiated any action pursuant to recommendation of Upa-lokayukta. 7. Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate is right in his submission that delinquent off icer, who chooses not to attend proceedings, cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice. According to Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, employer has not initiated any action pursuant to recommendation of Upa-lokayukta. Hence, there is no adverse order visiting the petitioner with any civi l consequence. Therefore, this writ petition is premature and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.