STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M. BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed praying this Court to issue order or direction in the nature of certiorari, to quash the Order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ['Tribunal', for short] in Application No.9332/2003 which is produced at Annexure-A and grant such other order or direction as this Court deems fit in the circumstances.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No.1 herein was working as Village Accountant of Lakkur Village in Malur Taluk, Kolar District and charges leveled against him was that he misused his official position by demanding illegal gratification from one S. Venkataramana Reddy for changing khata in respect of certain lands and he was subjected to trap and thereafter a case was registered against him under sections 7, 13[1][d] read with section 13[2] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In pursuance of the trap, the Respondent No.2 herein has launched prosecution against the Respondent No.1 based on the report submitted by the Lokayukta, in terms of section 12[3] of the Lokayukta Act, 1984, by its order dated 5.5.1997 entrusting the enquiry to the Upalokayukta against Respondent No.1 under Rule 14A of CC & A Rules. The Deputy Registrar of Enquiries-5 was appointed as 'Inquiry Officer' to conduct the enquiry who submitted a report that charges leveled against the Respondent No.1 herein was proved. Based on the said report, a recommendation was made to impose penalty of compulsory retirement. Hence, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice against the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.1 has given a reply to the second show cause notice and after considering the same, a detailed order has been passed by the petitioner herein, passing an order for compulsory retirement from service. The Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement from service, had approached the Tribunal in Application No.9332/2003. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, set aside the order of compulsory retirement and further directed the State Government i.e., petitioner herein to reinstate the Respondent No.1 herein for duty and further directed to forthwith give him a posting within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) The main ground urged in the petition is that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the material available before the Tribunal and failed to take note of the report given by the Inquiry Officer that the charges leveled against the Respondent No.1 herein has been proved. The Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner herein has considered the reply given by the Respondent No.1 herein and thereafter passed the order of compulsory retirement. The very finding of the Tribunal that reply has not been considered while passing the order is erroneous and hence it requires interference of this Court.