VEERABHADRANNA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as divisional controller in bijapur division of Karnataka state road transport corporation. He invited applications for filling-up the posts of drivers and after completing the formalities a selection list was prepared and after obtaining the approval of the managing director, appointment orders were issued. In that connection the security officer submitted a report as per Annexure b, dated 22-12-1989 with regard to the corrupt activities of the petitioner. Based on that report, a charge-sheet as per Annexure-A was issued to the petitioner on 15-1-1990 alleging that he used influence for awarding passing marks to 168 candidates in the trade test and another 18 candidates and that he issued the appointment order to a person demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000-00 while the appointment was made on compassionate grounds and thereby the said omissions and commissions constituted misconduct under regulation 3 (1) of Karnataka state road transport corporation servants (conduct and discipline) regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulations' ). The petitioner submitted written statement as per Annexure-C denying the charges. Enquiry was ordered under Annexure-D. After conducting the enquiry, a report was submitted on 10-4-1992 vide Annexure-n holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was given opportunity to have his say on the findings of the enquiry officer. Vide Annexure-o the petitioner submitted his representation pointing out the defects in the report and the irregularities committed by the enquiry officer. Satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority vide order at Annexure-p, dated 19-10-1992 exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. However, the board of directors suo motu reviewed the order of the disciplinary authority exercising the power under regulation 35 of the regulations, set aside the order of the disciplinary authority. Pursuant to the said decision, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order at Annexure-s, dated 20-4-1994 dismissing the petitioner from the service. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the impugned order at Annexure-u, dated 3-4-1995. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash both the orders at Annexures-s and u

(2.) SRI p. s. manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions and pointed out several irregularities and illegalities in the impugned orders and vehemently argued to quash the impugned orders. It is not necessary to traverse to all those contentions in detail. Since counter is not filed on behalf of the respondent, the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned orders are tested with reference to the petition averments and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) SRI l. Govindaraju, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned orders contending that the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of dismissal applying his mind and assigning reasons for accepting the findings of the enquiry officer and therefore this court should not interfere with the order of dismissal. He further submits that the appellate authority considered the material on record and the reasons assigned both by the enquiry officer in the report as also the disciplinary authority in the order of dismissal and came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal need not be interfered with and therefore the impugned orders does not call for interference.