M MUNIVENKATAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired from service as an Executive Engineer with the second respondent Corporation, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30. 6. 2001.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and five others by a notice dated 30. 10. 2000, on the allegation that certain road repairs were got executed unauthorisedly resulting in a cost overrun and thereby causing loss to the Corporation. The petitioner had denied the charges. However, the third respondent had proceeded to frame common charges against the petitioner and five others and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. The petitioner was furnished a copy of the enquiry report, to which he had made a representation dated 11. 9. 2003, pointing out that the enquiry was vitiated for reasons stated therein, and requested that the proceedings be closed and his pensionary benefits be released.

(3.) AS there was no response to his request, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 4685/04, seeking to question the disciplinary proceedings. The said petition was disposed of without entering upon the merits - with a direction to the respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months, by an order dated 21. 2. 2004. Since the respondents failed to comply - the petitioner had initiated contempt proceedings before this Court. In the said proceedings, the second respondent is said to have contended that this petitioner had questioned the show-cause notice in yet another departmental enquiry instituted against him by way of a writ petition in W. P. No. 3427/2001 - the same having been allowed by an order dated 13. 3. 2001, holding that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to institute proceedings against Group-A Officers -and the said order having been carried in appeal in Writ Appeal No. 294/2002 and the same was allowed by an order dated 22. 11. 2004, holding that in terms of a Corrigendum dated 23. 3. 1993 issued by respondent No. 1, the second respondent was competent to impose penalties on Group-A Officers.