B U UGRAPPA Vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is before me challenging Annexures-A to C passed by the first respondent and Annexures-L and N passed by the third respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed to the post of a Helper in 1979. Thereafter he was appointed as a Peon (designation subsequently changed as Junior Attender ). He was promoted as Attender during 1986 and as Junior Assistant in September 1993. While he was working as junior Assistant in Karnataka State Council for Science and technology, a charge-sheet was served in terms of Annexure-A on him, attributing certain misconduct and misbehaviour on his part. He was asked to submit his reply. Thereafter one Sri Kulkarni was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, on his resignation one Sri Gopinath was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The presiding officer was also appointed by the respondent. The charge-sheet was issued by Sri A. N. N. Murthy, the first respondent-Executive Secretary and Appointing authority. According to the petitioner, the entire incident had occurred in the Chambers of the Secretary and therefore he is not competent to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report in terms of Annexure-D. One Sri M. S. Ram Prasad who happened to be one of the complainants became the Executive secretary by the time the enquiry report was submitted and he was also a witness at the enquiry. He passed an order imposing penalty reducing the petitioner to the lower post of Attender on the pay scale of Rs. 1,040-1,900/ -. Against the said order petitioner preferred an appeal. Appeal was rejected. Thereafter, he moved this Court in W. P. No. 44871 of 1999. This Court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for redecision. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued on the basis of the enquiry report by the management. Petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, Annexure-L was issued and appeal was filed and the appeal came to be rejected. With these facts petitioner is before me.

(3.) NOTICE was issued and respondents have entered appearance. According to them the enquiry was held in a fair manner providing all opportunities to the petitioner. They say that taking into consideration, the seriousness of the misconduct the punishment was imposed. They justify their action.