SHOBHA T.R. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

(2.) The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.1960/2023 filed by the writ petitioner herein. The petitioner who was working as a Joint Controller in the Department of State Accounts, is presently working on deputation had challenged the charge memo issued to her on 18/4/2023 by the 2nd respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the charge memo which is produced as Annexure-A1 was in respect of non-deduction of TDS for periods from 8/1/2008 to 16/9/2009 and from 27/9/2010 to 6/12/2010. It is submitted that the charge memo which is issued to the petitioner, was challenged on two grounds. It was contended that the 2nd respondent who had issued the charge memo was neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority in respect of the post held by the petitioner and that therefore, the said authority could not have issued the charge memo as against the petitioner. It was contended, relying on Rule 11(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'KCS (CCA), Rules 1957'), that the Disciplinary Authority should draw up or cause to be drawn up the charge memo and the statement of allegations and that the charge memo drawn up without reference to the disciplinary authority is bad in law. Further, the writ petitioner contended before the Administrative Tribunal that the charge memo issued in respect of her posting as Accounts Officer in the 2nd respondent's department during 2008 to 2009 and 2010 was highly belated.

(3.) It is submitted that the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Hasmukhbhai Hirabhai Rana,(2006) 12 SCC 373. held that an authority which is even lower in rank than the disciplinary authority can issue the charge memo. It was further held that the issuance of the charge memo by the 2nd respondent could not be said to vitiate the proceeding. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LIC of India and Ors. V/s A. Masilamani,(2013) 6 SCC 530 . the Tribunal held that the issue of delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceeding is to be considered on a case to case basis. The facts and circumstances of the case in question have to be examined taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of the charges and that the question with regard to the interest of clean and honest administration is also to be looked into. On that ground, it was held that the challenge raised against the charge memo is premature and the application was dismissed.