J.S.HANUMANTHARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash charge memo dtd. 9/1/2013 issued under Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short the Rules].

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Chandan for Sri. H.S.Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the charge memo was issued on 9/1/2013 and appointed fourth respondent as Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer has not commenced the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner is being harassed and posted from one place to another place. The enquiry is not yet started, hence it is prayed that enquiry needs to be set aside. It is also submitted that the respondents have not taken into consideration the entire material facts before issuing the charge memo at Annexure-B dtd. 19/1/2013.