Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 593 (KAR)

V. S. Hiremath v. State Of Karnataka And Others

2020-02-28

G.NARENDAR, MAHESHAN NAGAPRASANNA

body2020
JUDGMENT G. Narendar, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1. In view of short point that involved in the present petitions, notice to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) passed in Application No. 4868/2018 dated 25.09.2019, whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to reject the application on the short ground that the material that was produced as Annexure-A7 being the statement of accounts pertaining to transfer of the funds to the beneficiaries by way of RTGS has not been produced before the enquiry officer i.e., Additional Registrar of Enquiries-3, Karnataka Lokayukta vide Annexure-A4. The enquiry authority has enclosed a copy of the complaint made by the husband of one Councilor and called upon the petitioner and another to submit their reply to the allegation that the Government subsidies to the residence of Gram Panchayat for construction of toilets has not been released in respect of 50 beneficiaries. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that right from his reply to the Lokayukta he has clarified everyone of the allegations with supporting documents, which is completely ignored right from the initial stages of the proceedings. In the enquiry proceedings he has engaged the services of the counsel and that he had handed over the documents pertaining to the RTGS transfers effected into the account of the beneficiaries which is produced as Annexure-A7 and that his counsel for reason best known did not participate and assist the enquiry and he was not put on notice regarding the same. He was deprived of an opportunity to place it before the enquiry authority. 4. The enquiry authority thereafter in the absence of any material placed in respect of the reply effected by the petitioner, proceeded to hold the petitioner and another guilty. Based upon the findings of the enquiry authority the second respondent on 22.09.2017 recommended withholding of four increments with cumulative effect. Based upon the recommendation the first respondent issued a second show-cause notice on 23.10.2017, to which the petitioner in reply to the notice again reiterated all that he has been telling right from the reply to the charge sheet. The first respondent accepting the recommendation imposed the afore stated penalty. 5. Based upon the recommendation the first respondent issued a second show-cause notice on 23.10.2017, to which the petitioner in reply to the notice again reiterated all that he has been telling right from the reply to the charge sheet. The first respondent accepting the recommendation imposed the afore stated penalty. 5. On approaching the Tribunal, the Tribunal after perusing the annexures including Annexure-A7, proceeded to hold that in the light of the fact that there has been no participation in the enquiry proceedings it has deemed it necessary to hold that though sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner, he has failed to participate and demonstrate his case. 6. It is submitted that the hearing was conducted on a single date and there was no opportunity to cross-examine PW. 1 as on that very day the proceedings were concluded ex-parte and the enquiry officer simply proceeded to pass the order holding the petitioner guilty, based upon which recommendation was made for imposition of a particular penalty. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, we are of the view that this is a classic case where the enquiry officer could have saved precious judicial time and resources of the State by merely looking into books of account pertaining to the relevant Panchayat even before issuing show cause notice or conducting the enquiry. It is not the case of the enquiry officer that he has either looked into the accounts of the local body or the bank statements maintained by the bankers in the course of its daily business or that even called for and looked into the audit report. It is not the case of the either the complainant also that the auditors have raised any objections in the course of audit. 8. That being the factual aspect, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has abdicated its duty by refusing to examine the material placed on record. The Tribunal being the Court of first instance and fact finding body ought to have appreciated the material placed before it and ought to have rendered a finding on merits. The Tribunal in our opinion has failed to discharge the duty cast upon it as a Court of first instance and a fact finding body. The approach of the Tribunal cannot be appreciated. 9. The Tribunal in our opinion has failed to discharge the duty cast upon it as a Court of first instance and a fact finding body. The approach of the Tribunal cannot be appreciated. 9. As noted supra, the mere verification of the accounts of the local body would have been suffice to convince the authority as to whether to act on the complaint or not. This being a matter of record i.e., expenditure of money being a matter of accounts the enquiry officer could have asserted the same without resorting to this enquiry and it could have merely called for the accounts of the bank or it could have called upon the complainant to produce these such material. 10. On the face of Annexure-A7 and Annexure-C, we have no other option except to set aside the orders and remit back to the enquiry authority to look into the said documents. The enquiry authority before proceeding afresh shall look into the accounts of local body and such audit report or banker statement as reflected in Annexure-A7 & C, and thereafter take a conscious decision as to whether an enquiry is required in the matter or not and proceed thereafter. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 4868/2018 (Annexure-A) is set aside. Consequently, Enquiry Report bearing No. UPLOK-1/DE/67/2017/ARE-10 dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure-A10), Recommendation bearing No. UPLOK-1/DE/67/2017/ARE-10 dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure-A11), Show cause Notice bearing No. GrAPa/767/GraPamKa/2017 dated 23.10.2017 issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure-A12), Punishment order date 19.02.2018 (Annexure-A15) are quashed.