Writ Petition No. 1110 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1110 OF 2021 (S-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: T. KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE SRI. THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS MANAGER (TECHNICAL), KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION LIMITED, AND RESIDING AT NO.57/2, 17TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560055 (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 009 2. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ADMIN) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 009 3. SRI BASAVAHALLI VENKATA KRISHA PRAKASH, RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ENQUIRY OFFICER, NO.01, 09/02, OM APARTMENT, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.3 AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.ED 16 DGP 2015 DATED 10.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BESIDES BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the correctness of a communication bearing No.Er 16 rf¦ 2015 dated 10.06.2020 addressed to him by the respondent No.2. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider his reply dated 28.03.2019 before commencement of the enquiry. 2.(i) The facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 being the Disciplinary Authority had issued a show cause notice dated 20.12.2016 enclosing therewith articles of charge accusing the petitioner of misconduct. The petitioner did not - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 reply to the articles of charge within the time provided. He filed W.P. No.5823/2019 before this Court inter alia for a direction to the respondents to furnish the documents that
Decision
were attached to the articles of charge. The Writ Petition was disposed off in terms of an Order of this Court dated 08.02.2019 by which, the petitioner was directed to be present at the office of the State Project Director, Sarva Shiksana Abhiyan on 13.02.2019 and in the office of Director, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan on 18.02.2019 and after perusing the records, to submit a reply on or before 28.02.2019. This Court directed that thereafter, the enquiry shall proceed in accordance with law. (ii) Thereafter, I.A. No.1/2019 was filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.5823/2019 for extension of time to file the reply. This Court extended the time to file reply before the Disciplinary Authority till 28.03.2019, vide order dated 05.03.2019. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 had already passed an order dated 09.11.2018 appointing an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his reply to the articles of charge on 28.03.2019. The respondent No.2 issued the impugned communication stating that the reply of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 petitioner shall be considered at the time of the enquiry and that he can submit his grievance before the Enquiry Officer and that a communication in that regard was also forwarded to the Enquiry Officer. 3. Being aggrieved by the said communication and also seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider his reply dated 28.03.2019, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the manner of conduct of an enquiry before imposing major penalty against a Government servant is provided under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules, 1957'). He contends that under Rule 11(5)(a) of the Rules, 1957, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to consider the reply submitted by the Government servant and to arrive at a conclusion whether the enquiry should be conducted by him or through any other authority. He, therefore, contends that the Disciplinary Authority is bound to apply his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner to assess whether an enquiry is necessary into the charges framed against the petitioner. He - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 contends that this is an important stage where the Disciplinary Authority has to apply his mind and cannot abdicate this to the Inquiring Authority. He submits that if the reply submitted by the petitioner is satisfactory, then the Disciplinary Authority need not even take further steps to appoint an Inquiring Authority. He therefore, contends that the impugned communication by which the Disciplinary Authority informed the petitioner that the reply would be considered by an Enquiry Officer or would be considered before the Inquiring Authority, is bad in the eye of law. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and others [(2001) 2 SCC 330], where it was held as follows:- "34. … It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority concerned has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the charge- sheet or show-cause as the case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative — the inquiry follows but not otherwise and it is this part of service jurisprudence on which reliance was placed by Mr Subramanium and on that score, strongly criticised the conduct of the respondents (sic appellants) herein and accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 them of being biased. We do find some justification in such a criticism upon consideration of the materials on record." 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 orally opposed the writ petition and contended that the petitioner did not file his reply within the time stipulated and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority felt that the petitioner has no reply to offer and appointed an enquiry officer. He contends that the Disciplinary Authority after perusing the reply of the petitioner, had issued the impugned communication stating that the same would be considered before the Inquiring Authority. He therefore, contends that the impugned communication cannot be challenged by the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1957, governs the procedure for conduct of an enquiry against a Government servant. In so far as the instant case is concerned, the relevant portion of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 Rule 11 of the Rules, 1957, is Rule 11(5)(a), which is extracted below:- "11(5)(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an Inquiring Authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government Servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 11-A." 8. A perusal of the above rule makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the written statement of defence by the delinquent employee, may if it considers it necessary, appoint an Inquiring Authority to inquire into the articles of charges. It is therefore, inherent that the Disciplinary Authority should apply his mind to the reply submitted by the delinquent employee before proceeding to the next stage of appointment of Inquiring Authority. There is nothing on record to remotely suggest that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the charge memo was served on him. There is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 nothing to show that the petitioner had disclosed his defence against conduct of a domestic enquiry against him and that the Disciplinary Authority had considered the defence and proceeded to frame the charges. On the contrary, the Inquiring Authority was appointed on 09.11.2018 i.e. even before the petitioner had submitted his statement of defence. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have applied his mind to the reply statement filed by the petitioner and ought to have verified whether there was a need for an enquiry. Such application of mind does not necessarily mean that the Disciplinary Authority had to deal with each and every defence raised by the petitioner. All that the Disciplinary Authority had to do was to take a overall view of the reply filed by the petitioner and decide whether he should inquire into the charges or an Inquiring Authority should be appointed to inquire into the charges. Since in the present case, the said procedure is not complied by the Disciplinary Authority, the impugned communication deserves to be quashed. 9. Hence, the following - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13989 WP No. 1110 of 2021 ORDER (i) This writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned communication bearing No.Er 16 rf¦ 2015 dated 10.06.2020 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed. (iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and take a holistic view and decide whether enquiry is necessary or not. (iv) If the Disciplinary Authority comes to a conclusion that an enquiry is essential, then he may decide whether he or an Inquiring Authority has to inquire into the charges alleged against the petitioner. (v) Since the proceedings of the domestic enquiry are pending from the year 2016, it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to conclude the aforesaid process within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA-para Nos.1 to 4 PMR-para Nos.5 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29