LAWS(KAR)-1967-7-6

RAMACHANDRAPPA T Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

Decided On July 20, 1967
RAMACHANDRAPPA (T.) Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us was an Assistant Engineer in the district of Hassan when he was charged of the supervision of a tank-repair work. In a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him, eight charges were leveled against him. The inquiring authority which was not the disciplinary authority recorded a finding that charges 2 and 3 were proved that charges 1 and 4 were partly proved and that charges 5 to 8 were not proved. By an order made by the Government on 19 November, 1962, these findings of the inquiring authority were accepted.

(2.) Under the provisions of rule 11(10)(1)(b) of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, a notice was thereupon issued by Government calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalties enumerated in Cls. (iv) and (v) of rule 8 of the rules should not be imposed on him. On 15 July, 1963, the petitioner made a representation in writing against the imposition of any such punishment, and, by an order made by Government on 10 June, 1964 Government directed that one increment shall be withheld with cumulative effect. The findings recorded by Government on 19 November, 1962, were modified by the order made on 10 June, 1964. Whereas by the earlier order it was held that charges 2 and 3 were proved and that charges 1 and 4 were partly proved, what was decided on the second occasion was that charges 1 and 3 were not proved and that charges 2 and 4 were partially proved. The exoneration in respect of charges 5 to 8 which had been made by the inquiry authority remained undisturbed.

(3.) The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner by Sri Datar was that there was no compliance with the requirement of rule 11(9)(b) of the rules when Government recorded their preliminary findings on 19 November, 1962. The requirement of that sub-rule is that in case where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority - and, it was so in this case - it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. That there was no consideration of the record of the inquiry when Government recorded their findings on 19 November, 1962, was the submission made by Sri Datar, and, it seems that this submission is substantial. It is the duty of the disciplinary authority in a case which is governed by rule 11(9)(b) to apply its mind to the material on the record to enable itself to record independent findings on each of the charges on which the inquiring authority recorded them. The only discussion by Government in the order made on 19 November, 1962, on the charges against the petitioner, reads :