T. JAYACHANDRA REDDY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager (Legal) in the respondent -Corporation in the year 1988 and was promoted as Manager (Legal) in the year 2003. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 10.06.2005 in the matter of financial assistance extended to M/s. Precitech Engineering, a partnership firm. A reply was submitted on 06.08.2005. Charge-sheet dated 28.09.2007 was served upon the petitioner containing the following charges ;

(2.) Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned advocate Vehemently contended that there is breach of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 11-A by the respondent. He submitted that the Inquiry Officer who conducted and completed the Inquiry having exonerated the petitioner from all the charges and the report submitted being a well considered report, upon appreciation of the entire material placed on record of the inquiry, no reasons for disagreement was made out and furnished to the petitioner, to make his representation. He further submitted that the format vide Annexure-1, enclosed to the show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 does not meet the mandatory requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 11-A of the Rules. He contended that the petitioner having submitted the explanation on 05.04.2011, without any application of mind, mechanically the penalty was imposed. He contended that the respondent having failed to consider the case in the correct perspective, impugned order suffers from fatal defects and the findings entered unsupported by any evidence being perverse, there is gross miscarriage of justice. He submitted that there is no due and proper application of mind and the order passed is bad in law, as the reply submitted has not received consideration in accordance with law.

(3.) Per contra, Sri. Gururaj Joshi, learned advocate defended the impugned orders by contending that there was no requirement for serving the reasons recorded to the petitioner and that the order dated 07.12.2011 being justified, no interference is called for. Alternatively, he submitted that even if there is any infirmity in the order passed against the petitioner, liberty be reserved to the respondent for doing the needful afresh.