Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1185 (KAR)

Mahendraraj Ubhale v. Divisional Controller

2022-09-08

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has called into question the order dtd. 29/1/2007 vide Annexure-C imposing penalty by the respondent in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. He has also challenged the consequential endorsement issued by the respondent vide Annexures-D dtd. 4/1/2010 and Annexure-F dtd. 30/6/2010. 2. The petitioner was working as a charge man in respondent " "Corporation. A departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure-A dtd. 22/12/2006. The respondent has issued articles of charges. Pursuant to that, vide Annexure-B dtd. 22/1/2007, the petitioner has given a reply. On considering the reply of the petitioner the impugned order Annexure-C is passed on 29/1/2007 imposing penalty of Rs.500.00. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dtd. 30/6/2010 vide Annexure-F has confirmed Annexure-C and dismissed the appeal and also subsequently, petitioner's promotion has been denied on the ground that departmental enquiry and penalty has been imposed. To that effect, Annexure-D dtd. 4/1/2010 has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 3. Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has imposed a minor penalty as per Regulation 22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short, 'Regulation'). Before imposing penalty the respondent ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner. Without giving such opportunity penalty has been imposed. The same is contrary to Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1971. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1996 Kar.3409 in the case of THE MALLESWRAM LADIES ASSOCIATION vs. H.N.CHANNAIAH. 4. Per contra, Sri Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent " " Corporation has contended that the impugned penalty order has been passed after giving opportunity to the petitioner and after considering the reply given by the petitioner the minor penalty has been imposed. Therefore, there is no violation of any provision of Regulation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner when he was in service. It is also not in dispute that the disciplinary authority has issued a charge memo vide Annexure-A dtd. 22/12/2006. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner when he was in service. It is also not in dispute that the disciplinary authority has issued a charge memo vide Annexure-A dtd. 22/12/2006. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has submitted his reply dtd. 22/1/2007 vide Annexure-B. The respondent has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-C imposing minor penalty of recovery of Rs.500.00. As per Regulation 22, the procedure for imposing the minor penalty after the charge memo is served is after receiving reply from the worker, if disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the minor penalty can be imposed and enquiry has to be dispensed, the authority has to pass an order dispensing the enquiry and communicate the same to the petitioner. The respondent without passing any order for dispensing with the enquiry has passed the impugned order. Even this Court in CHANNAIAH (supra) has held that before minor penalty could be imposed it is delegatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider the question of holding or dispensing with the enquiry into the allegations made against the delinquent employee. An enquiry would become necessary only in cases where the disciplinary authority consider to be so and record its opinion in the express term and without expressing its opinion enquiry cannot be dispensed with. 7. In the case on hand, the disciplinary authority has not passed any order dispensing the enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated, it is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned orders at Annexure-C dtd. 29/1/2007 and also Annexure-F, an order passed by the appellate authority dtd. 30/6/2010 requires to be quashed. The matter has to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, on consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo and pass fresh orders. In view of the quashing of Annexures-C and F, consequential order dtd. 4/1/2010 vide Annexure-D is also quashed. The request for promotion is subject to the result of the order to be passed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.