N R NAGA SETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Junior Engineer employed by the 5th respondent, Taluk Development Board, Gubbi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') . He was employed since 1-3-1971. THE Board on 6-3-1976 served a charge- sheet against him in accordance with, the requirements of Rule 29(2) (a) of the Karnataka Panchayaths and Taluk Boards Employees' (Recruitment and Conditions: of Service) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In all five charges were levelled against him. THE charges were framed by the Administrator of the Board. THE petitioner furnished his explanation to these charges on 22.3.76. THE, Administrative Officer, who was the Enquiry and Disciplinary Authority, passed the orders thereon on 28-6-1976. On 24-5-1976, two witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Authority but admittedly, in the absence of the petitioner. However, by his order dated 23-11-1976, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the five charges. THE petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner which came to be disposed of on 23rd Deer. 1976 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. THEreafter, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition to the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore. This Revision, also came to be dismissed by his order dated 9th June, 1977. THEreafter, the petitioner preferred a Revision to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which also came, to be rejected for want of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by these four orders enumerated above, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution, interalia, contending that the en;tire enquiry was not in accordance with the Rules and that there had been total denial of opportunity for a proper enquiry contemplated under the Rules. THE State of Karnataka, the Appellate Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner have also been made respondents in these proceedings. THEre is no return filed on behalf of the respondents in spite of several opportunities given. THE learned Government Advocate, from the records available to him, has submitted that the two witnesses said, to have been examined by the Disciplinary Authority, as earlier mentioned were examined in the absence of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. Rule 29 (b) (ii) (a) of the Rules provides for mandatory right to cross examine vitnesses against the officer who is being proceeded against for disciplinary action in which his removal is involved. For convenience sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 is set out in order to understand the mandatory natures of the Rules: