N. DASHARATH WADI Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist by-respondent order dated 17-2-1983. He was promoted as a First Division Assistant-cum-Field Officer in the year 1988. Thereafter he received various promotions. Articles of charges were issued against the petitioner on certain acts of misconduct on 22-11-2004. He submitted his explanation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry was held. The report was submitted on 18-6-2005 holding all the six charges levelled against the petitioner having been proved. A second show-cause notice was issued. The same was replied to. The Managing Director passed the order terminating him from service. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is governed by the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In terms whereof, Rule 7 provides for the nature of penalties that could be imposed, which reads as follows:

(2.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Surjit Ghosh v Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others, 1995 AIR(SC) 1053, held at para 6 as follows:

(3.) In the instant case also a provision for appeal has been provided against the order of Disciplinary Authority. It is not the case where there is no provision for an appeal. Therefore, the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment requires to be applied to the present case. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the order of removal from service suffers from an error and a defect and consequently would have to be set aside. Under these circumstances considering the petitioner's case so far as the merits of the enquiry report is concerned would not arise for consideration. The plea is one of an inherent error in passing the order of punishment. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.