C D VENKATARAMANA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful applicant before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, "k. A. T. " for short, has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of its order dated 18-6-1997 passed in application No. 5358/1995 in dismissing the same by not interfering with the order of dismissal passed against him by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 17-9-1993, urging various legal contentions and prayed to set-aside and quash the order of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority.

(2.) EXCEPT the relevant facts and rival legal contentions, since the K. A. T. has elaborately adverted to the facts and evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, we do not propose to elaborately refer to the aforesaid aspects.

(3.) THE petitioner was working as a Chief Officer, Grade-IV, in the Kamataka Municipal administrative Service. At the time of passing of an order of dismissal against him, he was working as a Chief Officer, Sakieshpur Town Municipal Council. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him at the instance of one Mr. N. D. Ramesh, who had approached him on 26-7-1989 for grant of license for construction of a hotel, on the basis of the complaint given by mr. Ramesh that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification for the sanction of license in his favour. Lokayukta Police Inspector sent a report to Lokayukta on 24-10-1989. On the basis of the said report, the first respondent passed an order dated 6-6-1990 directing a detailed enquiry by the Upalokayukta into the conduct of the petitioner. Thereupon another order was passed by the Upalokayukta on 21-8-1990 under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules 1957 appointing the Deputy Registrar, Enquiries-3, Lokayukta, Bangalore as the enquiry officer to frame charges and conduct enquiry against the petitioner. Articles of charges dated 26-11-1990 along with the statement of imputation, notice of enquiry was issued to him. The sum and substance of the charge is that he has demanded illegal gratification from Ramesh for issuance of license for construction of a hotel at Sakaleshpura. This charge was denied by the petitioner. Therefore a detailed enquiry was conducted by the third respondent in compliance with the rules referred to supra and principles of natural justice by affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to him. He submitted the report on 28-2-1992 to the Upaiokayukta the respondent No. 2 herein and in turn he had forwarded the report to the first respondent along with his own remarks on 27-4-1992 recommending awarding a punishment of removal of petitioner from service. The copy of the report were forwarded to the petitioner along with the recommendation of the second respondent and also a second show-cause notice dated 19-9-1992 calling upon the petitioner as to why recommendations of the second respondent to remove him from service by accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be passed for which a detailed reply dated 27-12-1992 was submitted by the petitioner explaining the circumstances that the findings of the Enquiry officer are not based on proper appreciation of legal evidence on record and findings recorded by him are erroneous in law which aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the second respondent while forwarding a report along with his recommendation for his removal and the petitioner therefore requested the first respondent to drop the proceedings against him. Despite the said explanation, the first respondent imposed penalty of removal from service dated 17-9-1993, against which order an appeal was filed before the first respondent which appeal also came to be dismissed by the first respondent on 22-8-1994 and again the petitioner submitted another appeal to the Governor and that was also rejected by issuing an endorsement dated 26-6-1995 stating that there is no provision under the Rules to entertain second appeal. Therefore, the petitioner approached the K. A. T. by filing original application to determine his rights and prayed to quash the order of removal and the order passed by the first respondent in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner questioning the correctness of the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry and correctness of the evidence recorded by the first respondent contending that there is no legal evidence or some evidence on record to impose the order of removal holding that the misconduct alleged against him was proved. The findings of the enquiry report has been accepted by the second respondent without applying his mind and forwarded the same with his recommendations to the first respondent for imposing penalty of removal and the same has been mechanically accepted by the first respondent without examining the material on record and whether there are extenuating and mitigating circumstances to impose such penalty upon him. Therefore, it was contended by the petitioner in the original application that the order of removal passed against him is not only vitiated, but also suffers from procedural irregularities and illegalities as the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the alleged misconduct are erroneous in law, hence the same are liable to be quashed. Both the respondents 1 and 2 have not applied their mind to the facts of the case and legal evidence on record, while passing the impugned order of removal passed against the petitioner. Further the first respondent has not considered the tenable explanation submitted by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice. All these grounds were urged in the statutory appeal filed by him before the first respondent under the Rules, praying the appellate authority to reconsider the facts and material evidence on record with reference to the evidence produced before the enquiry officer, but that has not been done by him. Therefore, the petitioner prayed the K. A. T. to exercise its original jurisdiction and quash the impugned order and grant relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits for which he is entitled to in law.