K N KULKARNI Vs. KABNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition who was working as Assistant General manager in the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in this petition has called in question the correctness of the order dated 13th December, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-K to this petition, passed by the Commissioner of the Board reducing the petitioner from the rank of Assistant general Manager to the rank of Manager by way of penalty on account of certain charges of misconduct levelled and found proved against him.

(2.) THE respondent-Board framed as many as five charges by means of articles of Charges. The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the materials available on record, has found that except Charge 3 all the other four charges were proved against the petitioner, by means of his report dated 14th March, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G to this petition. The Commissioner of the Board, on consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, passed order Annexure-K, as noticed by me earlier, imposing the penalty of reduction of rank of the petitioner from the rank of Assistant General Manager to the rank of Manager. Aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.

(3.) SRI S. V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order Annexure-K made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since the Appointing authority of the petitioner being the State Government, the Commissioner of the respondent-Board had no authority in law to pass the impugned order; and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same came to be passed by a person who had no jurisdiction to pass the said order. Secondly, he submitted that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5 held proved against the petitioner is totally erroneous in law inasmuch as the said finding has been recorded in disregard of the materials available on record; and therefore, the Commissioner of the Board has seriously erred in law in passing the impugned order.