M VENKATAPPA Vs. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the articles of charges dated 19-4-2001 issued to him vide Annexure-E by the 2nd respondent and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereon. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as an Education Officer in the 1st respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging that he failed to follow the prescribed rules and procedures in awarding contract for supply of ties because of which article of charges dated 13-3-2000 came to be issued and an enquiry was conducted. The allegations made against the petitioner were:

(2.) COPY of the charge-sheet is produced by the petitioner at annexure-B. Petitioner gave his explanation to the charge-sheet. One sri P. Gopalakrishna, Retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer and departmental enquiry was conducted in which chief Accounts Officer was examined as a witness on behalf of the 1st respondent. Petitioner submitted his statement of defence and written arguments. The enquiry was concluded on 24-11-2000. It is the case of findings/report. Petitioner further submits that he has reason to believe that the findings have gone in his favour. However, without taking action on the basis of the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, the respondents have proceeded to issue another charge-sheet dated 19-4-2001 terming it as an additional charge-sheet, copy of which is produced as Annexure-E. In the said additional charge-sheet, the same allegations as contained in the first charge-sheet are reiterated. Petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge-sheet questioning the validity of the issue of additional charge-sheet in respect of the very allegations for which an enquiry is already held. Without considering the reply, the 1st respondent has appointed another Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the additional charges framed. Office order dated 19-7-2001 appointing another Enquiry Officer is produced at annexure-G. When the Enquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner of the fresh enquiry proceedings, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the initiation of second enquiry on the basis of the same charges, after the first enquiry was held and the findings recorded is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submits that the second charge-sheet reiterates the charges levelled against the petitioner in the first charge-sheet in respect of which the enquiry is already conducted. Instead of completing the enquiry, a fresh enquiry is sought to be initiated which is impermissible as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which are adopted by the 1st respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents however submits that the respondent-Corporation is entitled to hold a fresh enquiry and as long as fair and reasonable opportunity is given to the petitioner, he cannot have any objection.