KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. T S VENKATARANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the employer, the Karnalaka Electricity Board, against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing disciplinary proceedings against an employee.

(2.) The employee joined the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short "the Board")in 1950 as a Store-Keeper. Consequent upon a preliminary enquiry, the Chief Engineer, Electrical (General), who was the Disciplinary Authority in so far as the employee was concerned, initialed disciplinary proceedings against the employee in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 11(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, as adopted by the Board. By the same order, he conferred upon the Executive Engineer, Electrical, Master Plan Division, Bangalore, of the Board, the authority to be the specially empowered authority to frame charges against the employee and to conduct the disciplinary enquiry. On 6th June, 1980 the specially empowered authority issued a charge-sheet to the employee. Briefly stated, the charge was that the employee had misused stores material, which amounted to its theft; he had unaulhoriscdly loaded a few coils of wires measuring about 400 metres and had misappropriated the same. A list of witnesses and documents was annexed to the charge-sheet. On 6th June, 1980 the employee submit ted his answer to the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer made a report thereon which found the employee guilty of the charge levelled against him. On the basis of the report the Disciplinary Authority passed an order reducing the respondent in rank and directing that his promotion should be withheld fora period of three years. An appeal was preferred, which was disposed of during the pendency of the writ petition. The appeal was dismissed. The writ petition was, thereupon, amended so that it challenged not only the disciplinary proceedings but also the order in appeal.

(3.) Having regard to the broad sweep of the order under appeal, it is necessary to refer to it at some length. The learned Single Judge noted that it was not disputed that there had been no preliminary notice anterior lo the appointment of the Enquiry Officer. As he put it, "the'recognised and accepted practice" before appointing an enquiry authority ''is to serve on the delinquent a notice containing allegations and, after receipt of reply, on application of mind, to come to a conclusion as to whether or not aprinia facie ease is made out against the delinquent and thereafter, if a ease was made out, lo proceed to serve a charge-sheet....."The appointment ol an enquiry officer followed thereafter. In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer was appointed first. Later on a charge-sheet had been served. The disciplinary proceedings has been conducted on receipt of a reply thereto from the employee. Such a procedure was not known to law. Only after the disciplinary authority was convinced that there was a case for being enquired into that an enquiry officer should have been appointed, If this procedure was not followed, the presumption would be that the disciplinary authority took it for granted lhat there was a case made out against the employee and this would be attributable to a preconceived notion on the part of the disciplinary authority which would vitiate a fair trial. There was justification and scope for the employee to impute either bias or preconceived notion against the disciplinary authority because the disciplinary authority had straightaway proceeded to appoint an enquiry officer and subsequently issued the articles of charge. Though there was only a procedural violation, it was of such material consequence that the substantive right of the employee to a fair trial was affected. The learned Judge, was, therefore convinced that the entire proceedings were vitiated and the punishment inflicted did not stand legal scrutiny.