RAMESH REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are directed against the order dated 30-5-2016 passed by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the application.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Shyam Prasad B.N, Senior Counsel with Sri P.B. Ajit, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that, the Tribunal failed to consider that as per Rule 11-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (in short 'the Rules') two contingencies are stipulated. One as per sub-rule (1) is that if the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the enquiry, it may order re-enquiry or further enquiry. But if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges are not proved, it has to record reasons for disagreement and give the opportunity to the employee concerned. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it was a case for falling under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A and therefore, the re-enquiry or further enquiry should not have been ordered. The aforesaid aspect is not properly considered by the Tribunal and hence this Court may consider in the present petitions. 3-A. We may record that in the impugned order before the Tribunal dated 30th Oct., 2015 copy whereof is produced at Annexure-A7 and it has been recorded in the said order of the Disciplinary Authority as under (English translation):