STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NINGANAGOUDA SHANKARGOUDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Karnataka represented by the Secretary to Government, Finance Department and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order of the karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (for short, "tribunal") dated 03. 12. 2002 passed in Application No. 5101 of 2002 have preferred this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: the respondent herein while serving as Second Division Assistant on probation in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Circle, Bijapur, was issued with a charge memo dated 20. 11. 2000 by the 2nd petitioner herein who is the Disciplinary Authority under rule 12 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short "cca Rules" ). The said charge memo is marked as Annexure-A1 and produced at page-21 of the material papers. It reads as follows:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . The respondent-delinquent submitted his reply to the charge memo. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the reply of the delinquent was proceeded to conduct enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer having conducted enquiry held that the delinquent is guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority having accepted the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, passed order on 18. 03. 2002 imposing penalty of dismissal as a disciplinary measure.

(3.) THE delinquent being aggrieved by the above order of the Disciplinary Authority filed application No. 5101 of 2002 before the Tribunal. The main ground urged before the Tribunal is that the Disciplinary Authority having initiated an enquiry under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules should have imposed minor penalty and ought not to have imposed an extreme penalty of dismissal and on that count itself, the order of the Disciplinary Authority could not be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed. As a defence, the Department in its reply statement filed before the Tribunal contended that though the enquiry was initiated against the respondent-delinquent under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, as a matter of fact, a regular enquiry contemplated under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules was conducted and therefore, it was very much within the power of the Disciplinary Authority to impose one of the major penalties on the delinquent, because, the misconduct alleged against him is satisfactorily proved by adducing evidence. The Tribunal having not found any merit in the defence, but finding merit in the contention raised by the respondent-delinquent, by its order dated 03. 12. 2002 allowed the application and quashed the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, this writ petition by the State of Karnataka and its authorities.