IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2:?' DAY 01:' SE}P'1"¥£Z\%IBE:1I{_.;2f§'%.i_:"(}.V_v
PRESENT % V % A'
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE-..V_ Q ,1 u
AND:
THE HONBLE MR JUS K G'0f»»IND;%§:i;F*«.THi}. CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA
PRAYINSTO Q1JASI'i "F}-{E IMPUG-NED ORDER DATED
08.07.2009 VPASSED IN APPLICATION I956/2002 BY
THE? KARNA.'I"AKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VICE
A;'I*vENE£XU§%E~B, IIII
-- ITIIIS"' INRIT PETITION BEING RESERVED AND
I:OIvIING:._ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
TIIIS ,IJAjI--',' K GOVINSARAJULU J., MADE'. TIIS
POI..LO.WINO:
ORIDEZR
Applicant in Application 310.1956/2002 on the fiie
of the Karnatztka Administrative '1':'ibunal, is
the péstitiortczt' in this Writ petition.
2. The case of the is -:t.ht:tt'._h_é"'Vixras
appointed as a part time t.eachor.. along "two '=tn'oré'--..
appiicants visa, M Govindartéghand MV"I;aks}:3ni§.;1arayana
applicants in 7829/ roopévotiveiy on
the fiie of the Tribunal,
(heroin "é1I°tet}fin ) Banggalore in the year 1988»
89 vvith - per month.
3' 'Thér,Va;5p1ic:aI:t:_§;1ong with ot.h(~:r appiicatats have
'_ t.h'e'-Va,o_t_i_o:1 of the State w}1en the State tried
' .disc;ont::._fiue_ their services. It is further pieadeci that
"théVt'petit'foné1:r and others were selectxad as t.eaCh_ers of
§""Iigh,f3f'2. Primary Schools on I:'{igL1L':'t1' basis, were
A Ahvgitgipoiitted for the post in the year 1994. Regularisyation
'1..,~,.~
was not done; increments were not granted. So, the
petitioner along with the other applicants M
Iekshmineirayazia and M Goviradarajti is _
given a rep3feseI1tat.ioIi that as_per of the"
Hiorfbie High Court, they are e'1";tit?g'ed ifot».regiL1i3;i'i:s.g1tiaj;n.
and also co-risequentiai be;'1de:f-:.ts. High COtivi"'f:If1aSVVpé£SS€(f. '
the order for The
order of this C0tiv1~'t~,ft1'5. Verified by the
concerned authoritie-S" that the writ
petitions Amanda
Sathyaraju and not by
the a departmentai inquiry is
initiated. ia£3'etitiot1ei"'vhéi's§Vdenied the charge of submitting
th'e.'<'dioetered doe1;i'frrienti After izzqtiiry, the inquiririg
"h'e5Id_1.thate the charge is proved. A second Show
eattse .11e7_tifee is issued. Thereafter, by an order dated
x7,12:2i(?aUO, the applicant is dismissed from service. It is
contended that the appeals preferred are also
V. ._ ..dismiseed.
4. It is the further ease of the petitioner that this
order dated 7.12.2000 is ehaiienged before KAT
has not considereci the vit.aI aspects of the c_e;s'e.«' i.
of the Karnataka Civil Services (Ciassifie-:tt_:i:o:1v,'*1}C0ntrot» .e
And Appeal} Ruies. 195? proyidesiAA.ffo4i*i».ifiro-eedeuregto
conduct an inquiry. Wit:-1.__oL1t:Viieoiiidueiirigi.:4si,1eh
inquiry, the order is passezir-,v:Petitioriet ready and
willing to face even 'a.riy_ktnci'ofiiriqiuiiry. Petitioner is
_ interested in fi<n(v:1ing,0'ut-- :t'he'*tr'2,_1th.V';41riti.v"that he has not
subm;ittfet1-tagiiedoetereiti._o1-oc1itii'e11't. These aspects being
not cvo:1sidereti':.ij3rhV contends that the order
passed KV!?(i'AA1%.s iiéibte to be interfered with by this
power under Articie 227 of the
'Cofisti't:itio'11._of India.
" Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently
"CQ1"'1:t.€I1CiS that a charge is said to be framed. To prove
V. _..the charge, there is at speetfi.e provision eontroilirtg the
\;«....,.»
(3
method of inquiry. Under Rule 11 of the Karnataka
Civil Servicee (C1aSSifi(f'c1.tiO1"£. Crmtzfol and Appe:1})"Rt;1es
1957 provides for procedure to conduct
client is i.m;e1*eSt.ed in finding out .t,.he truih." =15" "
not 3. party to the so called pro:d11i§_i.1c3'h
document. So, the iindiV11g°'g;iven"'is notv.Va"«~._iinc1i:ig in-'
compliance of the prixicipies---o_f "*;131$ura1 jigieficef So, ihe
inquiry is vitiated. _iprayf?i'or iiéehigiiside the order of
KAT.
"A"c'i£i«VV1'i,ior2«:«,'iI'"Government, Advocate for
respo-:_1de:1ts' other hand contends that
the High 4Cou'r=t._ inquiry is held, it in
aceordaneie }5vii:.iji'.'- V'I):i'OC€i?d113."€ preeeribed under law,
r6:':£:i°i%=01f1_;2iblV€; oapportunity is given to the petitioner.
» :pe"g.it.io:n§:I*haxffing pa::'i;ieipated, having received the first
._Sh_o\v"'vrzfaue-s§_'viiotice second Show Cause notice how,
o2;;moi:~ back. So, pray for dismissa.1 of the writ,
' petition,
7. have given careful Consideration.
C0nf.er1t,1'0us of the COE11'1S€} appearing for
scrutinized the material on l'(~:CO}Td~
8. Rule 11 of sémce-
(C1assificat.ion, Control }&ppea1)fl"vvR1.:eVEe 1957',
prescribe procedure ::'1'Irip§3siti0r3 of major
punishment,
K :;"TRiPA'm+11 vs STATE BANK
OF 1ND:A 4:3) has held that scope of
natural j1j'siiee.Vdepe_n€:'£é upon particular facts situation
' zmdi'e.£.;*e:_;msi:aI:eVeS"ef§f each case"
1O: i.--AV'I1nexure A8 is the letter attached to the
AAc:ha.rg'e__AAi11en10. Charge memo is ciateci 23.11.1998 and
annexed to the charge memo is dated 30.1 1.1998.
V. __::Er1 the charge meme, there is a mention that there is 21
.=£_.,_M,W.
prima facie ziiatcrial €Vidfi'I]C€ in regard to the Charges.
It refers to the xerox Copy of izhe order of this Court
being fui"ni.she:e:i and it being doctered, ii: ifs:;.""».a}so
contended in the charges based upon
documents, the petiitioner has ._ Vi
reguiarisation, increnients in
is in pursuance of this, thei"?'.:'
exchequer in a sum of /- .i.'£"i to five )of
p€'1'SOI1S Who affi obtaining
the regularisation. Iii-isv.haIsO 'false affidavit is
fu_r;1ishiédiiiii§g;% a'p;:5;I'icaiii""bii 1.6.1989, 20.7.1994.
Wage is obtained
1.
1.”;_allapura..’Ta11,{k. So.
allegations are false; ‘e.h’arges ..éan»n0t be sustained
le all . ‘i’hen..< llof the char es
g Y _ , .:PY_._ g
sepaJfately.– he"'Cétnn0t be found fault for
the see-1cti.of1 lireimlfiureemeiqt of the salary. It is the
fault_ of lliifaev r)fi7iee'rsV""(l)i' the Department who have
' eC;mrri.i't.tedz wit,h "'éi'"vtew to make u.r:£awfL1.1 and illegal
not submitted («,1 copy of the order of this
Cezf;,1rt tvit:h the representation.
,. A’m1e:s:ure A14 is the letter by the petitioner
‘berm. Peti.ti0t1er contends that list of witnesses,
documents sought to be relied by the Department are not
served upon him. Request. to engage the se1~vi(:vesf”~o:i5’~iE.he
learned advocate is not Considered. The i_’riqtiii*y5[‘offi€:ei*
has not Coriciueted the ii1.qtiiry’__with Cii_1éMC”‘,&1.–.T.”._€. “oa{1tjg;.:;,”
closed the inquiry within two deiys, ;i’i1qtii1t’y._ is ‘eo1’ii,fa1f§r¥1.t:>
the evidence on record, “o’n._ suspicion iand..’v«-vsuriinises.,”
findings are given, grounds the are not
considered by the the discipiinary
authority, reqti-ests :’E:’é?i.1.1999 to the
Charge also reply dated
14-. IO; dated 29.9.1999 has
also to be ‘co11si:jfe1feidp.°~.t_ .. ‘
it 13. ‘i’hew-..inate:ria1 pieced in AI1I1€X’t3I’€ A14 would
» theieharge memo is issued on 30.11.3998. Reply”
H the petitioner on 18.1.i999 i.e., more
“£.1′.1tii”1 days is given to the pet1’.ti.oner to submit his reply.
“Si::i_ii1d’i*’1y, after ’35 days, the petitioner has submitted his
to the show cause notice. Sitting of the inquiry
‘iioificter on i8.1.i999 a.i:i.d 1.3.1999 is asserted and it is
categorised as ‘hurrieci siiti:1g’ almesi: 11%;: 1110:1t.h’s time gap
is found in between two siiiings. Nothing is to
su’pp01.”*i. that the i.r.1quiry is violative of the . ;§f:>’i”i:’1~:%q1’f:)–§.e’;s:§-‘.__O5’1” _
naii:L’1r.21i justice. ‘Fi.r11e spent. for inqt:.iryv–..:sBa1:3§:Q:”€’.A éhev
contention of the learned AGA. 3 1
14. The Inquiry Officer Sn1’i’..Ml;feEagahahi refer”
version of the witnesses viz, Sriizaripresad -2;1″1’€_1 eiceepteci the
evidence of the witness;
prove’, pa1’tici§$2;’ti;3ur1~ petitioner in the inquiry
proceedinghs. ree.eiV51dg_ “0–I’_ ihe benefits under the doctored
d0cLm1er1i:, “i:i:;£ec1.27.'(a3.”i991_ in win 7037 to 7041 of 1990.
Trjjé-:Llp}:§or§ the }ii0r:.i:e:’1′{ion that the inquiry is not conducted
~ with Ruie 11, copy of the impmation is not
.fti’r_;1Ais’i’1e’:;i.,._ \vitv2*i’ess iisf: is moi, iizrzlished. assist.ar1ce of the
ac¥__voCa1;e ‘is—hot furnished, is not found in the course of the
c:c:»r£<33e:1é':":i, ef the inquiry. So, the c:omeni,ion of the Ieamed
V' Asadjaocziie for the petitiener ihat the inquiry is V'itiat:ed and
'Dad for n0n–ee:np1ia:nc:e of princziples of na1.u1'a1 jusiice and
piiyzeiples in Section N of the Keimaizika Civil $€.I_'ViCf3S
(Ciassifieaiiori. Control and Appeal) Rules. 1957
So the conclusion of the Tribunai that even aissiimiirigiihéxt
petitioner has not produced .'.-h'e~..<ji0c'ie're'§i"-idoeuiiiefii. Vi
petitioner eouici have produced t:I"i"ei Ct.-eiyiivof Tithe'
High Court in we No.703'.?'.i:£:-V..f7'<::–~:Li'V-of 1990 i~?§presént:ngV.i'
that he is entitled to the benefif.:0?regu1a1'i.sat:iQr;_:ind saiary
is justified and (fees tietfi i'I4'i"[4;'3:Vi'f.Cf'i'C.f'IC€ in exercise of
the writ Jurisdiction 01-"'Ehi*&=, :C0£1.€.i':s,_
iiiii Eiégé
.