(1.) POINT which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the principles of natural justice have to be read into Rule 11-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, the Rules') as a result thereof whenever the Disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Authority on any article of charges, then, before it records its findings has to give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it and defend his case.
(2.) THE point arises on the following facts. Appellant was working as a driver in the Karnataka Legislature secretariat. He was in charge of Car No. KAG 444. The car driven by him met with an accident with an autorickshaw on 4-4-1986 at about 12. 00 noon near Legislators' Home. Disciplinary Authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant alleging misconduct on account of rash and negligent driving in a drunken condition after taking liquor. A charge memo was served on the appellant. It contained two charges i. e. , driving of the car bearing No. KAG 444 in a rash and negligent manner and driving the car in a drunken condition. Disciplinary Authority directed the appellant to offer his explanation by way of defence. Delinquent by his reply dated 7-7-1987 filed his written statement denying all the charges alleged in the charge memo. Disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant, appointed Sri Yakub Sherif, Under - Secretary working in the Legislators' Home as the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations made in the charge memo dated 2044987. Before the Inquiry Officer, the respondents had examined three witnesses and the delinquent had examined two witnesses. The management had marked nearly ten documents in the proceedings.
(3.) INQUIRY Officer after holding the enquiry in accordance with law and observing the principles of natural justice submitted his report and the findings thereon along with the records of the proceedings to the disciplinary Authority. Inquiry officer was of the view that the appellant was guilty of the first charge namely, driving of the vehicle bearing No. KAG 444 in a rash and negligent manner on 4-4-1986. Inquiry Officer found the appellant not guilty of the second charge i. e. , driving of the vehicle in a drunken condition.