K S RUDREGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government provisionally accepting finding of guilt 'recorded by Commissioner of Enquiries (State Vigilance Commission) and recommendation of Vigilance Commissioner issued show cause notices dated 4-3-1985 and 6-3-1985 (marked as Annexures-F and G). Enquiry Officer relying on result of phenolphthalein test and oral evidence let in on behalf of the prosecution recorded a finding that charge of misconduct of acceptance of illegal gratification is established. On a consideration of representation made pursuant to show cause notices, Government concurred with the finding of Enquiry Officer as also recommendation of Vigilance Commissioner and ordered compulsory retirement as per impugned order dated 24th April 1985 (marked as Annexure-J).

(2.) While challenging impugned order both on irregularities committed in the conduct of enquiry as well as finding on its merits, petitioner has challenged vires of proviso to Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules ) on the ground that it violates Article J4 of the Constitution of India. In order to appreciate the merit of this contention, it is better to extract provision itself.

(3.) Contention of Sri Savanur, learned counsel for petitioner, is that Disciplinary Authority has no choice or discretion to impose any one of the penalties enumerated in Rule 8 of the Rules if charge of corruption is established as such a provision is opposed to principles enunciated in Mithu and others v State of Punjab (AIR 1983 S.C. 473). Submission is that reasons assigned by Supreme Court to quash Section 303 IPC holds good to invalidate the present proviso.