KULLA VENKATA SHETTY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DISCIPLIN AUTHORITY KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated June 13, 2006 in Writ Petition no. 5997/2006 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition.

(2.) THE challenge in the writ petition was against an order passed by the Enquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The learned single Judge noted that the enquiry proceedings were at the stage of arguments and took the view that it would not be proper to interfere with the enquiry proceedings at that stage and that the petitioner should raise an industrial dispute before the labour Court after the decision is taken by the employer on culmination of the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned single judge. It is neither proper nor desirable for the high Court to invoke its Jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with any or every decision taken by an enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings. Such interference will only delay the enquiry proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings and result in miscarriage of justice. Even if any order passed or decision taken by the Enquiry officer is wrong or illegal and is capable of vitiating the report of the enquiry or the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the aggrieved party should wait till the disciplinary proceedings are completed and challenge the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings before the appropriate forum. In our view, the learned single Judge has rightly declined to exercise her discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India in this case.