H R JAYADEVAPPA, Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 12.7.2013 passed in Application No.5657/2010 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore wherein the Tribunal has declined to quash the memorandum of charges dated 30.7.2010 bearing No.Lok/ARE -4/14 -A/ENQ -39/2007 issued by the second respondent in a departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner pursuant to entrustment of the same by the first respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner had entered into service in the department of Industries and Commerce. He had been promoted to various cadres. He was working as Managing Director, Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Bangalore. In the year 1998 he was posted as Managing Director, Karnataka State Coir Co3 operative Federation Ltd. Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Federation' for short') on deputation. While working in the Federation he went abroad from 21.6.2002 to 8.7.2002. On his return he was not allowed to rejoin to his duties at the Federation. However, at the intervention of the Government he was taken back to duty. One Sri.S.N.Patil and Sri.B.T.Radhakrishna, who were the Vice President and Superintendent of the Federation respectively, had operated the bank accounts while he had gone abroad. They had committed some irregularities in the financial transactions of the Federation. Therefore, the Federation passed a resolution on 13.9.2002 and recommended for an enquiry under Sections 64 and 65 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the Government did not take any decision in the matter of holding enquiry under Section 64 of the Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset contended that admittedly the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner relates back to the years 1998 -2000 (according to him it dates back to the years 1995 -96 to 2002 -03). The charge memo is dated 30.7.2010. The respondents have slept over the matter for over a period of 12 years which has jeopardised the interest of the petitioner and his right of defence is also taken away on account of the inordinate delay in initiating the enquiry.