ORDER : 1. The Petitioner, who was working as the Secretary to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, has filed this writ petition challenging the notice dated 02.02.2019 and also the charge sheet accompanying the said notice. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition, stated in a nutshell, are that: While the petitioner was working as a Secretary in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, there appeared in newspapers, articles citing various financial irregularities committed in conducting the Assembly Session at Belagavi in the year 2016 and 2017. In view of the said newspaper articles, since prima facie irregularities were noticed, the Speaker suggested to the Chief Secretary, by a letter dated 23.11.2018, that the Finance Department conduct a detailed enquiry with regard to the said irregularities and submit a report within a week. Pursuant to the said decision of the Speaker, under the Chairmanship of the Joint Director of the Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Department, a five member body was constituted to enquire into the alleged irregularities committed in respect of the Assembly Sessions held at Belagavi in the year 2016 and 2017. The said Committee scrutinized the entire records and submitted a report dated 02.12.2018 to the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department and the said report was in turn forwarded by the Additional Principal Secretary of the Finance Department to the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary, in turn, submitted the same to the Speaker. The Speaker considered the said report submitted to him and after noticing the irregularities pointed out in the report, proceeded to author a nineteen page note, which reads as under: Any Other Language 4. Thus, as per this noting of the Speaker, the 5. The first approval sought for was to keep the petitioner under suspension pending holding of a disciplinary enquiry and the second approval sought for was for holding of a disciplinary enquiry against the concerned officer/employees who were responsible for the omissions. 6. The File was then submitted to the remaining members of the Special Board i.e., the Chairman of the Legislative Council, the Law Minister and the Chief Minister. These members, who collectively constituted the Special Board, gave their individual approval to the request of the Speaker. 7. Pursuant to the said approval, the petitioner was placed under suspension. 6. The File was then submitted to the remaining members of the Special Board i.e., the Chairman of the Legislative Council, the Law Minister and the Chief Minister. These members, who collectively constituted the Special Board, gave their individual approval to the request of the Speaker. 7. Pursuant to the said approval, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The validity of this order of suspension, it is stated at the Bar, is the subject matter of other writ petitions which may not be germane to this writ petition and hence, are not referred to. 8. On 31.01.2019, the noting indicates that a charge sheet had been prepared and an approval was sought for from the Speaker for dispatching the same to the petitioner. On the same day, the Speaker accorded approval for the said request and as a consequence, the notice dated 02.02.2019 was dispatched to the petitioner along with the charge sheet which was also dated 02.02.2019. 9. It is this notice and charge sheet which is impugned in this writ petition by the petitioner. 10. The first and main limb of the argument advanced by Sri A.S.Ponnanna, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there was actually no approval accorded for holding of disciplinary enquiry by the Special Board and the only approval that was accorded by the Special Board was for placing the petitioner under suspension. 11. The second limb of the argument advanced by him was that the charge sheet ought to have been drawn up by the Special Board and even if it is assumed that the charge sheet, could be ordered to be drawn up by somebody else at the direction of the Special Board, nevertheless, the Special Board ought to have applied its mind independently before it was issued and since in the instant case, there was no such application of mind by the Special Board, much less approval, by the Special Board for issuing the charge sheet, the said charge sheet was non est. He contended that the record indicated that the charge sheet had been issued only on the approval of the Speaker and was hence invalid. 12. He contended that the record indicated that the charge sheet had been issued only on the approval of the Speaker and was hence invalid. 12. The third limb of his argument was that as on the date the charge sheet was issued, the Special Board had been reconstituted and therefore, before issuing a charge sheet, the approval of the reconstituted Special Board ought to have been taken. It was his submission that since there was no approval by the reconstituted Special Board, the charge sheet was non-est. 13. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner banked heavily on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Vs. GOPINATH – (2014) 1 SCC 351 to contend that mere approval of the disciplinary authority to initiate a disciplinary enquiry would not tantamount to an approval of the charge sheet. It was submitted that permission accorded for initiation of disciplinary enquiry cannot be considered as an approval by the disciplinary authority to the issuance of the charge sheet. He contended that merely because the Special Board had approved the initiation of a disciplinary enquiry, the said approval could not be sufficient to meet the requirement of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules, which contemplated a mandatory approval of the charge sheet by the Special Board for the drawing up of charges. 14. He submitted that even if the Special Board had directed the drawing up of charges by someone else, it was bound to examine the charge sheet in detail and thereafter accord approval for issuance of the same. He submitted that since admittedly no such approval had been sought for or accorded by the Special Board for issuing the charge sheet, the entire proceedings would be vitiated and the charge sheet would, therefore, have to be quashed. 15. Sri. R. Subramanya, the Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, contended that under the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘2003 Rules’), the disciplinary authority was the Special Board and this Special Board not only granted approval for placing the petitioner under suspension, but it had also accorded approval for holding of a disciplinary enquiry. In other words, it was his submission that a composite approval had been accorded by the Special Board not only for suspending the petitioner, but also for initiation and conduct of the disciplinary enquiry. Elaborating on this aspect, he contended that the approval was sought for on the basis of a nineteen page note put up by the Speaker in which the irregularities had been highlighted in great detail and the charge sheet was basically a reflection of irregularities highlighted by the Speaker. 16. He submitted that the Speaker had prepared a note, not on his own, but on the basis of the enquiry report that he had secured from a Five Member Body. He, therefore, submitted that having regard to the elaborate noting of the Speaker, the Special Board had applied its mind to the irregularities highlighted by the Speaker and therefore, accorded a composite approval and there was thus an implicit approval for drawing up of a charge sheet also on the basis of said noting. He submitted that since the charge sheet was essentially a reflection of the irregularities which were highlighted by the Speaker, no separate approval was necessary for issuance of the same. 17. He submitted that necessity of obtaining approval of the disciplinary authority to draw up a charge sheet would arise only when material was collected after the decision to initiate disciplinary enquiry had been taken and the charge sheet was actually based on the material collected after the decision to initiate the enquiry had been taken. 18. He submitted that in the instant case, all the material necessary for not only initiating an enquiry, but also for drawing up of a charge sheet had been collected and placed before the disciplinary authority i.e., the Special Board and since approval was accorded by the Special Board on the basis of voluminous material collected, there was no need to seek for approval for issuing a charge sheet and any such approval would have only been a superfluous approval. He submitted that the procedural requirement of drawing up of a charge sheet would not in any manner vitiate the charge sheet and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 19. He submitted that the procedural requirement of drawing up of a charge sheet would not in any manner vitiate the charge sheet and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 19. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: Speaker sought for the approval of the Special Board in respect of two matters. Whether the Special Board (Disciplinary Authority) was required to accord an express and distinct approval for issuance of a charge sheet, notwithstanding the approval it had granted for conduct of a disci plinary enquiry? 20. In order to answer this question, one would have to examine the scheme of the CCA Rules and ascertain the true intent of the procedural rules that have been framed for imposing a major penalty, in so far as it relates to the controversy involved in this case. 21. The CCA Rules have been framed by the State in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, an Article which enables the State Legislature to frame rules relating to recruitment and conditions of service to the persons appointed to public services or posts. 22. The objective behind the said CCA Rules is to fundamentally ensure that the constitutional obligation imposed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India to hold an inquiry against a member of the civil service before he is dismissed, moved or reduced in rank is adhered to. This, in essence, is a compliance of the basic tenet of the principles of natural justice which is to hear and afford a reasonable opportunity to a person before imposing a liability on him. 23. Part V of the CCA Rules enumerates the penalties that can be imposed on a Civil Servant and the procedure to be adopted in imposing the penalties. 24. Rule 8 of the CCA Rules describes the nature of penalties and Rule 9 describes the disciplinary authorities who are empowered to impose the penalties. Rule 10 is the Rule which confers power on the Appointing Authority to suspend a Civil Servant and the manner in which it is to be exercised and also to revoke the order of suspension. 25. Rule 10-A of the CCA Rules narrates the authorities who can institute disciplinary proceedings against a Government Servant. Rule 10 is the Rule which confers power on the Appointing Authority to suspend a Civil Servant and the manner in which it is to be exercised and also to revoke the order of suspension. 25. Rule 10-A of the CCA Rules narrates the authorities who can institute disciplinary proceedings against a Government Servant. Sub-Rule (1) states that the Governor by himself or through any other authority empowered by him, either by a special order or a general order can institute disciplinary proceedings. The said sub-rule also enables the Governor to direct the disciplinary authority, who is competent to impose any of the penalties specified under the Rules, to institute disciplinary proceedings. 26. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10-A of the CCA Rules states that a disciplinary authority, who is empowered to impose penalties specified under clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Rule 8, i.e., minor penalties, may also institute disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalties, though he is not the authority to impose the said major penalties under the Rules. Thus, a disciplinary authority, who cannot impose a major penalty, can nevertheless institute disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalties. 27. Rule 11 of the CCA Rules lays down in detail the procedure to impose a major penalty. Sub-Rule (1) mandates that no major penalty can be imposed unless an inquiry as provided in Rule 11 is followed. Sub-Rule (2) provides for the conduct of the inquiry by the disciplinary authority itself or in the alternative to appoint another authority to conduct the inquiry. 28. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 11 states that when it is proposed to hold an inquiry, 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 and a statement of the imputations in support of the articles of charge. 29. The said Sub-Rule also states that the statement of imputations should contain the statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant and it should also contain a list of documents and list of witnesses through whom the articles of charges would be sustained. 30. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 11 mandates that the articles of charge, statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses should be delivered to the Government Servant. 31. 30. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 11 mandates that the articles of charge, statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses should be delivered to the Government Servant. 31. As the other Sub-Rules of Rule 11 of CCA Rules are unnecessary for this case, they are not referred to in this order. 32. As could be gathered from the above, the intent behind framing of Sub-Rules (1), (2) and (3) is clear and plain, which is, that a definite prescribed procedure is required to be followed for imposing a major penalty and the first step in imposing the major penalty is to put the Government Servant on notice of the charges that are being levelled against him and also inform him the evidence that would be laid against him in order to substantiate the charge. 33. These Sub-Rules are basically to ensure that basic principles of natural justice are followed in as much as the person accused of a wrong doing is informed of the wrong doing alleged against him and the material that is being relied upon to prove his wrongdoing are also furnished to him so as to enable him to put forth a proper and effective defence. 34. In the instant case, firstly, it is the specific assertion of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there is no approval for instituting the proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority, which is admittedly, the Special Board and the approval relied upon by the State as an approval to institute the proceedings was essentially an approval for placing the petitioner under suspension and there was no specific and distinct approval for instituting the proceedings. 35. In my view, this argument of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted, since the Speaker, who is also a member of the Special Board, in clear and unmistakable words, sought for approval for not only placing the petitioner under suspension but also for instituting the disciplinary proceedings. In other words, a composite approval was sought for two separate issues, one for suspension and another for instituting disciplinary proceedings and the Special Board granted approval for both the issues and this approval cannot be bifurcated, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and be confined to only the aspect of suspension. 36. In other words, a composite approval was sought for two separate issues, one for suspension and another for instituting disciplinary proceedings and the Special Board granted approval for both the issues and this approval cannot be bifurcated, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and be confined to only the aspect of suspension. 36. It is to be borne in mind that the nineteen page note of the Speaker clearly indicated that as per the report of the Five Member team of the Audit Department, serious irregularities had been pointed out and it was, therefore, imperative that not only should the petitioner be placed under suspension but a further detailed disciplinary proceedings was required to be conducted to punish the wrongdoers. 37. Viewed from this angle and also from the clear and unmistakable wording of the Speaker used while seeking approval of the other members of the Special Board, it is crystal clear that permission was sought for not only placing the petitioner under suspension, but also for holding an enquiry and the other members of the Special Board accorded their approval for both the suspension and also the conduct of the enquiry. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, fails and is rejected. 38. Coming to the argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner regarding the necessity of the Special Board to either itself draw up the charges or at least apply their mind before issuing the charge sheet is concerned, the following facts would be relevant. 39. As has been extracted above, the Speaker, before considering the material, sought for a report from the Officers of the Karnataka State Accounts and Audit Department, who in turn, submitted a detailed report, which was examined by the Speaker and the Speaker himself noticed twenty three irregularities committed in the matter of holding Assembly Session in the year 2016 and 2017. 40. The Speaker, after highlighting twenty three specific irregularities, was of the considered view that the petitioner herein was responsible for the irregularities and he had suppressed relevant material to the Speaker and he had also not rendered necessary advice/guidelines to the Officers. 41. 40. The Speaker, after highlighting twenty three specific irregularities, was of the considered view that the petitioner herein was responsible for the irregularities and he had suppressed relevant material to the Speaker and he had also not rendered necessary advice/guidelines to the Officers. 41. Thus, a highly detailed opinion was recorded by one of the Members of the Special Board i.e., the Speaker, on the basis of an enquiry which had already been conducted by a five member body of the Audit Department. It is clear from the noting of the Speaker that specific material had already been collected which supported the twenty three different irregularities committed by the petitioner and other Officers and the entire material so collected had been examined and scrutinized in detail by the Speaker and also categorized into definite set of allegations. This, in my view, was itself a clear application of mind not only to institute the proceedings, but also to draw up the charges which had been highlighted by the Speaker. This categorization of irregularities and the opinion of the Speaker to conduct an inquiry was accepted by the other Members of the Special Board and thus, there was also a clear approval to draw up distinct articles of charges inbuilt in the approval. 42. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was no material placed before the Special Board at the time of taking a decision to place him under suspension and that the material to conduct an enquiry was based on material collected subsequently and therefore, the disciplinary authority had no opportunity to apply its mind for framing charges. 43. It is to be kept in mind that in this case, the decision to place the petitioner under suspension and also to hold an inquiry was based on a preliminary enquiry conducted by a five member team of the Audit Department which itself indicated gross irregularities and that there was clear and definite material to proceed against the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the view that the argument of the learned Senior Counsel in this regard cannot be accepted. 44. Yet another reason to reject the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the charge sheet basically mirrors the irregularities which had been pointed out by the Speaker. I am, therefore, of the view that the argument of the learned Senior Counsel in this regard cannot be accepted. 44. Yet another reason to reject the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the charge sheet basically mirrors the irregularities which had been pointed out by the Speaker. A comparative tabular column, indicated herein below, of the irregularities highlighted by the Speaker and the articles of charges framed in the charge sheet essentially proves this fact: Any Other Language 45. A plain reading of these two columns indicates that the distinct categorization of the irregularities highlighted by the Speaker have been framed as distinct articles of charge and this fact proves that the Special Board was conscious of the charges levelled against the petitioner and the Board had applied its mind and approved the holding of a disciplinary proceedings on the said charges. Thus, the charges which were levelled against the petitioner had been scrutinized by the Board and there was thus an application of mind by the Board to all the charges and the charge sheet issued thereafter basically mirrored the charges that been highlighted by the Speaker in his nineteen page note. In view of this incontrovertible fact, the argument that the Special Board had not applied its mind to the charges that were framed against the petitioner cannot be accepted. 46. As far as the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Gopinath’s case referred to supra by the learned Senior Counsel is concerned, in my view that said decision is clearly distinguishable. 47. The Apex Court, in Gopinath’s case, though was considering the issue as to whether a charge sheet could have been issued without the approval of the disciplinary authority (who happened to be the Finance Minister in that case), even though he had given approval for initiation of major penalty proceedings, was basically interpreting the Office Order No.205 dated 19.07.2005 in which, Clause 8 of the Office order, stipulated that an approval of the Disciplinary Authority for issuance of a charge memo was necessary. It was in this context that the Apex Court held that an express approval for issuing a charge memo was indeed necessary. 48. It was in this context that the Apex Court held that an express approval for issuing a charge memo was indeed necessary. 48. In the case on hand, under the CCA Rules, there is no requirement of the Rule or any Office Order which makes it mandatory for obtaining the approval of the Disciplinary Authority to issue a charge memo and therefore, the ratio laid down in the decision by the Apex Court would have no application. 49. As already stated above, in this case, specific detailed irregularities had been highlighted by the Speaker in his nineteen page note, which according to him made it imperative to hold an enquiry and this specific detailing of the charges were examined by the remaining members of the Special Board and they also accorded approval to hold an enquiry. This, in my view, would have to be construed as an express approval by the Special Board to the distinct charges that had been framed in the charge sheet. 50. The last limb of the learned Senior Counsel’s argument that at the time of issuing the articles of charge, the Special Board had been reconstituted and hence, the approval of the reconstituted Board was required to be taken before issuing the articles of charge, would not arise, since, in my view, the earlier Special Board had itself had accorded approval for the drawing up of articles of charge and there was no necessity for seeking for approval once again of the reconstituted Special Board. 51. I, therefore, find no merit in any of the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 52. Since the charges levelled against the petitioner are of the year 2016-2017 and the conduct of the enquiry has been stayed as a result of an interim order granted in this writ petition, it is necessary to direct that the enquiry against the petitioner be conducted and concluded by the concerned authorities within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.