K H MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 28-4-2006 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), Bangalore, in Application No. 5218 of 2003, rejecting the application and declining to interfere with the order passed by the first Respondent-State dated 6-6-2003, wherein de novo enquiry has been ordered against the applicant-Petitioner herein by invoking the provisions of Rule 26(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'KCS (CC and A) Rules').

(2.) The Petitioner herein joined service in the Health Department of the Government of Karnataka as a Lecturer on 22-7-1982. He was promoted as Professor of Forensic Medicine during August 2000. He has worked in Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, and Mysore Medical College Hospital, Mysore. One Mr. Naushad was admitted to Victoria Hospital for treatment of burn injuries on 13-11-2000 and Naushad died due to burn injuries. Smt. Khamar Taj, the mother of Naushad, the deceased through her Advocate wrote a letter to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Victoria Hospital, along with an affidavit stating that the age of her son had been wrongly mentioned as 17 years in the post-mortem report instead of 181/2 years. On the basis of the said letter, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police wrote to the Professor of Forensic Medicine to make correction with regard to the age of the deceased Naushad in the post-mortem report. The Government issued a show-cause notice dated 20-3-2001 to the Petitioner seeking his explanation as to why he testified the age of the deceased Naushad as 17 years in his post-mortem report, though the inpatient slip mentioned the age of the deceased Naushad as 12 years. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the writ Petitioner, charges were framed against him and Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 10-1-2002 stating that the charges against the Petitioner had hot been proved. The disciplinary authority by the order dated 13-2-2002, accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer exonerating the Petitioner of the charges and the Petitioner was exonerated of the charges. However, on the basis of the letter dated 17-10-2002 received from the Human Rights Commission calling upon the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, to furnish report about exoneration of the Petitioner of the charges, the enquiry report was sent to the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission asked for action taken by the Disciplinary Authority on the enquiry report and reminder was sent to the Principal Secretary to submit about the follow-up action. Thereafter, the first Respondent-State has passed an order on 6-6-2003 ordering de novo enquiry against the Petitioner, which is impugned in the application No. 5218 of 2003.

(3.) The application was resisted by the Respondents herein contending that the matter was sensitive and on the basis of the letter received from the Human Rights Commission, power of review under Rule 26(c) of the KCS (CC and A) Rules has been exercised by the Government.