Prem Kumar v. BANGALORE MAHANAGARAK PALIKE

( By Sri. K SREEDHAR, ADV. ) AND : 1 2 BANGALORE MAHANAGARAK PALIKE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N R ROAD, BANGALORE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER (ADMN), N R ROAD, BANGALORE ( By Sri. K N PUTTEGOWDA, ADV.) ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order - 2 - dated 20.07.2011 in W.P. No.12635/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court and grant the prayer made in the said writ petition. This writ appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, V.SURI APPA RAO. J., delivered the following : JUDGMENT The appellant filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 20th July 2011 passed in W.P. No.12635/2005.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant was appointed as Gangman on compassionate grounds on 11.01.1988 by the respondent on account of death of his father Narasimha. He was promoted as Junior Health Inspector on

18.07.1996. On 27.11.1998 a Charge Memo was issued against him alleging that he secured employment by misrepresentation. Consequently, an enquiry was held and first show cause notice was issued . Again, the respondents issued another Charge Memo and issued second show cause notice to the appellant proposing to hold an enquiry. Therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 4951/2001 challenging the show cause notice, in which an interim of stay was granted. Subsequently, the said writ petition was allowed and second charge memo was quashed reserving liberty to the respondents to pass - 3 - appropriate orders in terms of Section 11-A of the KCS CCA Rules. The respondents again issued a fresh charge memo on the same allegations. Hence, the appellant filed the writ petition No.12635/2006 challenging the second charge memo dated 28.07.2006. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, holding that there is no impediment to the respondent Corporation to proceed with the enquiry.

3. Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that basing on the second charge memo, the respondent – Corporation cannot conduct enquiry in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.4951/2001. In the Writ Petition No.4951/2001 filed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge permitted the respondent – Corporation to pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 11-A of the KCS CCA Rules. Admittedly, the respondent – Corporation sought for explanation of the appellant basing on the second charge memo dated

28.07.2006 (Annexure 'K'). The earlier writ petition filed by the - 4 - appellant is to quash the order dated 15.01.2001 (Annexure 'H'). Section 11-A of the KCS CCA Rules clearly indicates that the Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 11. Clause (2) of Rule 11-A clearly says that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.

6. In the instant case, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the second charge memo dated

28.07.2006 on the ground that the charge memo issued by the respondent – Corporation is illegal and unsustainable. The learned Single Judge at para 3 of the order clearly indicated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a show-cause and a charge sheet were issued to the appellant, which was the subject matter of challenge in an earlier writ petition in W.P. No.4951/2001. The same is remanded back to the Inquiring authority for further inquiry, quashed the second show- - 5 - cause notice that was issued by the disciplinary authority, while reserving liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 11A of the Rules. The appellant therefore, challenged the show cause notice issued by the respondents. The second charge memo issued by the respondents – Corporation is on the basis of fabricated certificate produced by the appellant for seeking employment on the ground that he was son of one Narasimha. The charge memo further indicates that he has not studied in the school. The certificate is also a false certificate produced by him. Therefore, basing on the above said charges, the inquiry was sought to be initiated against the appellant by the respondent – Corporation.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1971 SC 1447. The learned Single Judge observed that the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case the Respondent – Corporation issued second charge memo to the appellant for seeking the appointment on compassionate grounds by producing false and fabricated documents, though he was not the son of Narasimha and his widow Smt. Kala already been appointed on compassionate grounds.

8. The learned Single Judge was therefore, justified in - 6 - dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. We therefore, see no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. Rbv.