LAXMANRAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in appointing two enquiry officers in respect of two illegalities committed by the petitioner one at Chincholi and another at Yadgir; one enquiry officer is from Bangalore and another enquiry officer is from Dharwad; and thus, the enquiry officers will conduct the enquiry at Bangalore and at Dharwad. Petitioner is a retired Government servant. According to him, if he is made to appear in both the places i.e., at Bangalore and Dharwad, it will lead to waste of time and money. The records reveal that the petitioner allegedly misappropriated the funds while he was working at Yadgir as well as Chincholi. Unfortunately, it seems none of the retired District Judges have settled at Yadgir or Chincholi or at Gulbarga. Therefore, the department thought it fit to appoint enquiry officer from Bangalore and another enquiry officer from Dharwad. Annexure-C discloses that Mr. N. Subbarao, retired Judge of Bangalore is appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner while working at Yadgir office, whereas Annexure-D discloses that Mr. F.C. Guddakar, retired Judge of Dharwad is appointed as enquiry officer in respect of misappropriation committed by the petitioner while working at Chincholi.

(2.) Sri. Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from kidney problem and therefore, he has to repeatedly travel to Bangalore.

(3.) If it is so, it is convenient for him to face the enquiry in both the cases at Bangalore. If both the enquiries are held at Bangalore, even the department will be benefited, inasmuch as, officials need not to travel to Dharwad for the said purpose. As a matter of fact, petitioner was only holding in-charge post at Chincholi while he was working at Yadgir. Therefore, in my considered opinion, interest of justice would be met if the enquiry is conducted by the same officer at Bangalore.,