VISHNU HANAMANTHAPPA BAGALKOTI Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is preferred against the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 22-01-1991 in confirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority dated 30-3-1986. By the said Order, the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner to the lower stage in the time scale for a period of two years from the date of the order. To appreciate the case of the petitioner, a few facts requires to be stated.

(2.) PETITIONER was working as an assistant accounts officer in the Karnataka electricity board ('board' for short ). While working in the aforesaid post, petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 21-01-1985, containing allegations of misconduct said to have been committed by him as a. a. o. the deputy controller of accounts (enquiries) was appointed as a specially empowered authority as an enquiry officer to frame definite charges and to conduct enquiry against the petitioner as per rules by the disciplinary authority. The said enquiry officer had framed two charges against the petitioner. In the first charge it was alleged that the petitioner erased a word which was previously recorded in his service register and the same amounted to tampering of records of the board. In the second charge it was alleged that the petitioner pasted one attested copy of the caste certificate in his service register without obtaining the permission of the appropriate authorities. After obtaining the explanation from the delinquent, the enquiry officer held both the charges are proved against the petitioner. The matter was placed before the disciplinary authority as required under k. e. b. rules. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and accordingly imposed the punishment of reduction to lower stage in time scale of pay for a period of two years by his order dated 30-03-1986. aggrieved by this Order, petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority by his order dated 22-01-1991. It is the correctness of these orders which are being questioned by the delinquent in this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution, being aggrieved by the same.

(3.) SRI kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contends that the procedure for holding the enquiry adopted by the disciplinary authority in appointing the enquiry officer even before framing of charges against the delinquent officer is contrary to Rule 11 of the Karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1957, as adopted by the board. Therefore, the entire disciplinary enquiry proceedings are vitiated.