B C AMMAKKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 20/ 22.4.2006 passed by District Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri ordering compulsory retirement of the petitioner and also to set aside the order dated 9.4.2008 passed by the second respondent-Registrar General of this Court modifying the order into one of voluntary retirement passed by the third respondent and refusing to review the said order by rejecting the application for review on 9.4.2008 and to direct the second respondent to consider the application dated 24.3.2008 and to decide the appeal on merits by considering the facts and grounds urged in the appeal.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that petitioner was appointed to Group-D post on 28.10.1980 in the establishment of third respondent. She was promoted to the cadre of SDA. She was working as SDA in the office of Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Virajpet and was entrusted with the work of Motor Vehicle Claims in pending branch. She was on casual leave on 3.4.2001 to attend the funeral of her aunt. The third respondent initiated a Departmental enquiry against the petitioner in DE.No.2/2004 and served a charge memo dated 20.9.2004 calling upon her to submit her written statement of defence on or before 21.10.2004 alleging that she had been entrusted with the charge of motor vehicle claims pending branch and due to her dereliction and negligence of duty she has misplaced/missed the cheque sent by this Court in MFA.No.3606/96 in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and it is not credited to CCD and caused loss of cheque amount and interest thereon in Execution Petition No.87/2003 on the tile of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Virajpet. The petitioner denied the said articles of charge served upon the petitioner and submitted that on 3.4.2001 she was on casual leave and no cheque was entrusted or received by her from the Sheristedar either personally or through any official of the Court. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Virajpet was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. Four witnesses were examined by the Presenting Officer in the enquiry and Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 31.3.2006 to the third respondent holding that the charge against the petitioner had been proved. The third respondent issued a second show-cause notice to the petitioner on 3.4.2006. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said show-cause notice and third respondent by order dated 20/22.4.2006 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement to the petitioner with effect from 31.5.2006 under Rule 8(vi) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and petitioner was relieved of her duties as SDA on the afternoon of 31.5.2006. It is the further case of the petitioner that she preferred Administrative Appeal to the second respondent, records were called for in the said appeal. Petitioner was in financial distress as she stopped receiving her salary from 1.6.2006 because of the order of compulsory retirement and therefore, she was under suspension and she was forced to submit a representation on 3.1.2008 to the second respondent requesting the said authority to consider here case sympathetically and at least permit her to retire voluntarily from service so that she could lead a peaceful life without any stigma. The petitioner sent a representation on 24.3.2008 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice requesting to cancel the representation given by her on 3.1.2008 for voluntary retirement and to order consideration of appeal on merits. The said representation was received on 26.3.2008. But the second respondent without considering the said representation of the petitioner by which she had withdrawn her earlier representation dated 3.1.2008, passed an order on 9.4.2008 and has modified the order of compulsory retirement into voluntary retirement from service with effect from 31.5.2006. The petitioner filed application for review of the said order passed by the second respondent and the application for review was also rejected and therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said reliefs.

(3.) When the matter was posted for hearing on 3.7.2009, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to retire and the learned Counsel was permitted to retire and the writ petitioner was present as party in person.