P.K. VEERABHADRA Vs. TOBACCO BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent. A charge sheet dated 27.01.2009, under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules') was issued alleging that while the petitioner was working as Senior Grading Officer and Incharge Auction Superintendent at Tobacco Board Auction Platform No.61, Kamplapura, during 2008 failed to discharge his duty properly which resulted in investment of funds of '3.50 crores in the banks by Sri K. Hanumantha Rao, Assistant Manager(Accounts) and signing on three cheques by the petitioner misusing his official position, in favour of Sri K. Hanumantha Rao, facilitated for transfer of office money of Rs. 6,08,057/- to the personal account of Sri K. Hanumantha Rao. The CBI, Bangalore investigated the said issue and filed a case [C.C.No.138/2010 (R.C.No.11/2009)]. The XXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, on 01.12.2011, pronounced judgment convicting Sri K.Hanumantha Rao and the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss.120-B, 468, 471, 420, 409 of IPC and S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and imposed separate sentences. The CBI, Bangalore vide a letter dated 09.12.2011 (Annexure-E) informed about the said conviction of the petitioner and the said communication was received by the office of the 1st respondent in the first week of May 2012. Petitioner having not informed his superior officers regarding his conviction by the Court as per the said judgment, alleging that he has violated the decisions of the Government of India and suppressed the information regarding judgment of conviction passed against him by the CBI Court, Bangalore and alleging violation of provisions of Rule 3(I) (i) & 3 (I)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 a Memorandum enclosing the Articles of Charge, imputations of misconduct along with list of documents and list of witnesses vide Annexure-A was served. Petitioner having submitted written statement of defence dated 18.07.2013 vide Annexure-F and the 2nd respondent having been appointed as Inquiring Authority on 23.09.2013 vide Annexure-G and the petitioner having been notified the date of inquiry on 18.11.2013 vide Annexure-J, the preliminary inquiry having been held on 27.11.2013 vide Annexure-K and the regular inquiry having been held on 16.01.2014 vide Annexure-L, this writ petition was filed to quash the Articles of charge vide the Memorandum as at Annexure-A.

(2.) Sri H.M. Muralidhar, learned advocate, firstly, contended that the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner having been questioned in Crl.A.No.78/2012 and the sentence having been suspended on 18.01.2012 and the judgment of conviction also having been stayed on 05.07.2013 and the petitioner having brought the same to the notice of the Secretary of the 1st respondent-Board, on 10.07.2013 vide Annexure-D and also the written statement of defence submitted on 18.07.2013, the 1st respondent has committed material error in not dropping the charge and in appointing the 2nd respondent to hold the inquiry. Secondly, the Rules do not mandate that the fact of conviction should be brought to the notice of the official superiors and the petitioner having sent copies of the interim orders passed in Crl.A.No.78/2012 and the CBI also having sent to the 1st respondent, a communication with regard to fact of conviction, the initiation of disciplinary inquiry vide Annexure-A being arbitrary and illegal, interference is called for.

(3.) Perused the writ record. The point for consideration is whether Articles of Charge can be quashed during the pendency of the disciplinary inquiry?