THIMMEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has come up before us on a reference made by K. A. Swamy, J. by his order dt. 19-7-1982. The learned Single Judge felt that the matter deserves consideration at the hands of the Division Bench having regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. A. R. Srinivasan (AIR 1966 SC 1827) which in his opinion may to some extent be inconsistent with the view taken by this Court in T. Ramachandrappa v. State (1967-2 Mys. L. J. 360) and the decision of the Division Bench in W. P. No. 2256/66.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:- The petitioner was holding the post of an Assistant Medical Officer in Primary Health Unit, Kalasa Town, Chikmagalur District, during the year 1966-67. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him in respect of five charges- The State Government which is the Disciplinary Authority under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), entrusted the enquiry to the Vigilance Commission under R. 14 -A of the Rules whereupon the enquiry was held by the Assistant Director of Vigilance-2 and inquiry Officer, The -inquiry Officer made a report on 24-8-1974 holding that charges 2 and 3 are not proved and that charges 1,4, and 5 are duly proved. The Vigilance Commissioner, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, made a report, agreeing with the findings of the inquiry Officer, and recommended to the Disciplinary Authority to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority recorded its findings onJ5-12-1974 accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer and the recommendation of the Vigilance Commissioner. On 9-12-1974 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority proposing to impose the penalty of dismissal from service and requiring him to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed on him. Along with the show cause notice, copies of the report of Inquiry Officer, the recommendation of the Vigilance Commissioner and the findings of the Disciplinary Authority were also furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter gave a detailed representation on 13-2-1975. He also sent a further representation on 10-6-1976. The State Government the Disciplinary Authority-made a final order on 16-11-1976 dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. It is the said order of dismissal that is challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Sri Murlidhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, formulated the following four contentions :-