ESWARASA Vs. CHAIRMAN AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22160/2004 which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge. The challenge in this Writ Petition was against Annexure-'l' order dated 17. 10. 2002 and Annexure-'n' order dated 24. 6. 2003. As per Annexure-'l' order dated 17. 10. 2002, issued by the respondent chairman and Disciplinary Authority, Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage Board, a penalty of withholding five increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the appellant as per the provisions contained in Rule 8 (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. As per annexure-'n' Endorsement Dated 24. 6. 2003, the appellant was informed that the Appeal filed by him against Annexure-'l' order was examined and rejected by the Appellate Authority, namely bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. After considering the rival contentions of the petitioner and the respondent, the learned Single Judge upheld Annexure-'l' and 'n' and dismissed the Writ Petition.

(2.) HAVING heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we do not find any valid and sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner had raised mainly two grounds:

(3.) IT is seen that as per Annexure-'b' letter dated 12. 4. 2001, the appellant had requested the respondent to issue to him certain documents to enable him to reply to the show cause notice dated 31. 3. 2001. It is also seen from Annexure-' C' Endorsement dated 2. 5. 2001 that in response to Annexure-'b' letter, the appellant was informed by the respondent that he could meet the administrative Officer during the working hours of the office and peruse the documents in question and take notes. Even though learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the appellant went to the Administrative Officer to peruse the documents and take notes, he was not allowed to do so, there is no such averment or allegation in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the story of the appellant that he was not allowed to peruse the documents and takenotes in terms of Annexure-'c' Endorsement cannot be believed or accepted. Inasmuch as the appellant was given opportunity to peruse the documents and take notes, there was no violation of any principles of natural justice. The fact that copies of the documents were not supplied to the appellant will not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. To satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice; it is sufficient that the delinquent employee is given opportunity to peruse the documents and to take notes. This requirement was satisfied in this case and therefore, the first contention of the appellant is devoid of merit.