BALAGANGADHARA K . Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dtd. 26/6/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short "KSAT") in Application No.639 of 2021 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning on 27/1/2011 and was serving in the said capacity. On 3/5/2016, a Show Cause Notice along with the Articles of Charge under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, came to be issued alleging dereliction of duty in relation to the processing of a land conversion proposal. The said charge memorandum is produced as Annexure-A1. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 10/5/2016, denying the allegations and seeking dropping of the disciplinary proceedings. The said reply is produced as Annexure-A2. Thereafter, by order dtd. 30/6/2017, the Government appointed the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru as the Enquiry Officer and the Commissioner, Urban Development Authority, Chikkamagaluru, as the Presenting Officer to conduct a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner. The said order is produced as Annexure-A3. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 5/2/2018, holding the charges proved. According to the petitioner, the enquiry report is perfunctory, suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The enquiry report is produced as Annexure-A4.

(3.) Based on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a Second Show Cause Notice dtd. 21/8/2018, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation against the proposed punishment. The said notice is produced as Annexure-A5. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 24/9/2018, disputing the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and reiterating that the charges were not established by any legally admissible evidence. The said reply is produced as Annexure-A6.