K. VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working as Project Director, DLDB, Kadur, during 1995 to 1998. It was noticed at the time of an inspection by his Superior Officer that the petitioner had recklessly spent the office amount without properly showing the expenditure and without proper documents to support such expenditure. It was also found that many articles allegedly purchased were not in the stock or they had not been received. Therefore, a joint enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and four other officials by issuance of articles of charge. The petitioner denied the charges. However, he did not dispute the payments for which receipts had been obtained. He contended that the amounts were paid to the respective concerns and the stock also had been received. In addition, petitioner contended that he was not asked by his Superior Officers to show supportive documents for the purchase of articles or the stock and therefore he had not shown them. On a detailed enquiry, the Inquiring Authority found that the charges 1 to 9, 11 and 12 have been proved. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order dismissing the petitioner from service and also ordered recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,21,285/- from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner preferred an appeal to the Governor, which was also rejected. Hence, petitioner has filed Application No. 2917 of 2007 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, wherein by order dated 24-7-2009, the application was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Though the Inquiring Authority committed a serious error, the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. In particular, he relies on Rule 11-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules'), to contend that there was no proper consultation of the Karnataka Public Service Commission before imposing the penalty. Therefore, he pleads that the impugned order should be set aside.