GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Vs. GOVINDA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the State Government challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 4-5-1978 in Writ Petition No. 6550/77.

(2.) The Respondent made an application to the State Government under Section 5 of the Karnataka State Servant (Determination of Age)Act,I974(hereinafter referred to as the Act,) for alteration of his date of birth from 20-9-1922 to 15-2-1923. For the purpose of holding an inquiry, the State Government appointed, under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, the second appellant as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer held an inquiry and after giving an opportunity of showing cause in the matter to the Respondent, submitted his report agreeing with the request of the Respondent for alteration of his date of birth- The State Government, however, disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and passed an order on 30-6-1977 rejecting the Respondent's application. The Respondent challenged the said order of the State Government in W. P. No. 6550/77-The Learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order of the State Government on the ground that the Respondent was not given an opportunity of being heard by the State Government before passing the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, contended that the Respondent having been given full opportunity of placing material in support of his case and he having been given an opportunity of hearing before the Inquiry Officer, could not complain of the violation of the principles of natural Justice on the ground that the State Government did not give him an opportunity of hearing. In support of this contention he relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in David -v.- State of Karnataka, "That was a case in which the State Government had agreed with the report of the Inquiry f Officer regarding the alteration of the date of birth of the Government servant. The grievance made in that case was about the failure on the part of the State Government in not giving an opportunity of hearing to the Government servant before taking a final decision in the matter. It has been held in that case that it is not necessary for the State Government while agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer to give on opportunity to the Government servant. Their Lordships have not held in that case that principles of natural justice do not require an opportunity of hearing being given to the Government servant when the State Government is inclined 1. 1979 (1) Kar. L.J. 1 to disagree with the report of the Inquiry Officer which re-port is In favour of the Government servant. The very judgment which is the subject matter of this appeal was pressed into service before the Division Bench in that Case and Their Lordships have, after considering the said judgment, observed as follows in paragraph-10 :