N.B. PUTTALINGARAJU S/O LATE N. BORASHETTY DISTRICT: MANDYA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA, COMMISSIONER, TOWN MUNICIPAL, COUNSIL, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA AND SRI ANKEGOWDA PLANNING DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL BANDIGOWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the teamed Government Pleader. The petitioner was working as a bill collector on official duty though be belonged to Group D category of Municipal. service and this was during the year 1993 -94, 1994 -95. The petitioner had duly collected the taxes and remitted the same to the Municipality and ha had also submitted the receipt books at that point of time. This revenue related to the IV Division of the Mandya Municipal Council and there was no discrepancy in the accounts that had been submitted by the petitioner at that point of time. However, by a memo dated 30.7.1996, it was alleged that the receipt book furnished by the petitioner, in respect, of the taxes collected, had not been handed over. The petitioner duly replied denying the allegations and that it was also pointed out that it was duly audited well in time and hence, the question of receipt books not having been submitted cannot be accepted. The petitioner followed up with a further representation along with the details of the receipt book handed over by him to the Municipality and especially in the light of the circumstance that no receipt of acknowledgement would be received insofar as the submission of the receipt bock is concerned was also pointed out and it was further asserted by the petitioner that since the petitioner was issued with the receipt books subsequently, it would follow that the earlier receipt books had been submitted well in time. This is in accordance with the Karnataka Municipality Accounts Rules, 1965 whereby under Chapter 10 Rule 152, no fresh books of receipt will be issued without taking the earlier books and returning the same to the Municipality office. It was on that basis the matter stood closed but thereafter at the instance of the 3rd respondent a false complaint was lodged against the petitioner and he was promptly suspended from service on the allegation, of the discrepancy which was the subject matter of the earlier queries as already stated. It is in that background that the present petition is filed. In the first instance, this Court had granted an ad interim order of stay which has continued to be in force. The petitioner is continuing in employment. The petition now coming up for final hearing, it is noticed that the. statement of objections have been. filed by the learned Government Pleader by which he seeks to assert that the claim of the petitioner that he had returned the receipt books and handed over to the City Municipal Council is incorrect as it was noticed there were discrepancies in the receipt books which were submitted by the petitioner as they were nearly 38 receipts missing from the receipt books. The petitioner was called upon to explain and he was placed under suspension having regard to such glaring circumstance and therefore, would submit that the action on the part of the respondents is justified. However, there is no explanation forth coming in the statement of objections as to how the proceedings have been rekindled after nearly 14 years from the date of the event. Neither is it sought to be denied that the earlier proceedings, as stated by the petitioner, stood closed in the year 1996 itself, In that view of the matter and having regard to the law as laid down by ft Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Andrews v. District Educational Officer, Bangalore Dist & Another reported in 1996 (2) Mys. L.J. 324 where it is held that insofar as the discrepancy in the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, it is permissible for the disciplinary authority to discontinue the proceedings and start another in respect of the same matter, if there is a defect or other analogous reason for the continuance of one proceeding and for the commencement of another. But, where the circumstances show that the discontinuance of the first proceeding was the outcome of the acceptance of the explanation offered by the petitioner, commencement of the second disciplinary proceeding in respect of the same charges would not be justified, This decision would squarely apply to the circumstances in the present case on hand, Accordingly the petition, stands allowed. The impugned order at Annexure H stands quashed.