B.R. SHIVARAMIAH Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE AND THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION AND THE ENQUIRY OFFICER)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner in this petition has challenged the Enquiry Officer's report and its finding in DE No. 14 of 2008 passed by the Registrar (Administration) and Specially Empowered Authority, High Court of Karnataka and he has further challenged the order of dismissal dated 1st October 2010 and rejection of Review Petition dated 7th December 2010 and sought for quashing the said orders. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint made by PW1 -Chandrappa, by issuing charge -sheet in Departmental Enquiry No. 14 of 2008. The charge framed against the petitioner is that while he was working as Court Officer, he had received an amount of Rs. 15,000/ - from the complainant through Rajashekaraiah, Second Division Assistant on 6th July, 2007 and he had acknowledged the receipt of the said amount and assured him that he would look after the case. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to maintain honesty, integrity and committed an act of unbecoming a High Court servant, which amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 22 of the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules). The Articles of charge refers and furnishes the list of witnesses. The Complainant himself was examined and got marked seven documents. Articles of charge are supported by statement of imputations. The charge leveled against the petitioner has been denied submitting reply dated 13th March 2009. In his reply, the petitioner had stated that at the relevant time he was on leave for a considerable period due to personal reasons. He has stated that as per Annexure -D1, leave was granted by the competent authority by its Notification in No. HCE 310/2007 dated 2nd July 2007. The period, in which the petitioner is alleged to have committed misconduct, for the purpose of Rule 22 of the Rules does not arise since he was not on duty. Instead of dropping the proceedings against the petitioner, enquiry proceeded, found him guilty and the petitioner has been visited with the order of dismissal from service. An Enquiry Authority, under Rule 17(2) of the Rules has been appointed to make a report within four weeks.

(2.) THE enquiry proceedings and the order of dismissal and rejection of review petition has been challenged in this petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken following grounds: That the charge leveled against the petitioner is in contravention of Rule 17(2) of the Rules. The said Rule requires a definite charge to be framed on the basis of materials available. The charge that the petitioner has accepted Rs. 15,000/ - through the other delinquent official is a vague one as it could be seen and no material could be found out from the charge. The learned counsel submitted that PW1 in his cross -examination has specifically elicited that he has no materials, particularly, against this petitioner in support of his complaint and the charge made against the petitioner. In the light of the deposition of PW1 to the effect that he has no materials in support of the charge, instead of dropping the proceedings, for no reasons, the enquiry proceeded further. He further submitted that furtherance of enquiry is bad in law and is violation of Rule 17(2) of the Rules. The report submitted by the enquiry officer holding that the petitioner has committed offence, is without there being any evidence and materials, is an error of law and fact. It is not an option on the part of the enquiry authority to snub or evade the reasons, he is duty -bound to place on record the evidence portion as well as the materials. The enquiry officer committed an error in making his report. Evidence of PW1 oriented only against the delinquents no. 2 and 3 and if at all, the enquiry officer has to come to that conclusion, it should have been against the delinquent officials No. 2 and 3 and not against the petitioner. After the submission of the enquiry report, the Rules require that the Disciplinary authority would communicate and supply a copy of the report along with statement of its findings together with proof and reasons, to the delinquent for disagreement if any. Unless it is done, Rule 18 of the Rules contemplates issuance of second show -cause notice. Before passing an order, consideration of representation is required. In response to the notice, the petitioner has made a detailed representation highlighting the lapses committed in the enquiry report and none of his defence has been considered by the disciplinary authority. The Rules further provide to make a review application by conferring power upon the disciplinary authority. As per the said provision, the petitioner made a review application and the same has been rejected without a speaking order.

(3.) HEARD both. The foundation for initiation of enquiry is the compliant made by PW1. Two complaints have been made; one is on 16th July 2008 made to the Registrar General and the second was made on 29th July 2008 and one more complaint was made on 22nd October 2008. In all these complaints, the complainant refers the name of the petitioner as it is revealed by delinquents No. 2 and 3. While demanding bribe from the complainant, he has revealed the name of the petitioner, who was working as Court Officer of that court. He further refers the name of the petitioner in making demand for registration of a site for which he has to keep Shivaramiah in good books. Except these references, PW1 does not speak specifically as to whether the petitioner has made a demand or accepted the bribe. He has further stated in the complaint that on a particular date, he went along with the petitioner to the Canteen. In the complaint, PW1 has confined his grievance only against delinquents No. 2 and 3. On the basis of the complaint, it was referred to vigilance branch and further or, the basis of the vigilance report, the Articles of charge were framed. In order to issue a charge against a person, Rule 17(2) of the Rules mandates that the Specially Empowered Authority shall frame a definite charge on the basis of the allegations. That means to say that there shall be a definiteness in framing charges and to frame the charge there must be an allegation. As already stated, in the complaint made by PW1, there are no specific allegations made against the petitioner. The reference of the name of the petitioner on two occasions by delinquent officials No. 2 and 3, itself does not constitute an offence and the same is insufficient to frame the charge. Accordingly, the foundation has not been properly taken in initiating enquiry. The petitioner was only an accessory to the incident and he cannot be found guilty from the principal offenders, viz. delinquent officials No. 2 and 3. The charge of allegation is odious and is not to be presumed. If the complainant had stated that the petitioner had accepted, demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/ - to favour him, then it should have been different.