V M KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who while working as an Officer in the Employment Exchange at Bijapur was found to have acted with impropriety in giving a benefit to his brother, was lepprted against by the Vigilance Commission, whereupon the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, directed an enquiry against him and appointed the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur Division, to do so. The Assistant Commissioner after enquiry imposed a punishment of with-holding two increments. It was later discovered by the Government that as the Vigilance Commission had started investigation, it was necessary tnat the Government themselves should have directed an enquiry in view of Rule 14-A of the CCA. Rules. By that time, the period of six months prescribed for review under Rule 27 of the CCA. Rules had expired. Hence, they moved the Governor under Rule 26 of the CCA. Rules to review the matter. The Governor, after issuing a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not act under Rule 26, set aside the order of punishment made by the Assistant Commissioner and remitted the case to the Government for ordering a de novo enquiry to be held in accordance with the rules.

(2.) The Government have taken subsequent steps pursuant thereto to get a fresh enquiry held.

(3.) The petitioner impugns the order of the Governor and subsequent action taken by the Government pursuant thereto.