NANJUNDA Vs. CHAMRAJENDRA ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners-1 to 3 in W. P. No. 10644/2006 and the petitioners in W. P. No. 10577/2006 are common. Though the reliefs sought in the writ petitions are different, the basic facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are also common. Therefore, both the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioners have been working as attenders at Sri. Chamarajendra Zoological garden, Mysore, the 1st respondent in W. P. No. 10644/2006. An order dated 21-11-2005 was passed by the disciplinary authority keeping them under suspension on the ground that they are responsible for the death of certain zoo animals. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued proposing to hold the disciplinary enquiry against them. Criminal prosecution was launched against them on the basis of the same set of facts. . The petitioners denied the charge by filing their reply. Being not satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority constituted a One Man Enquiry committee headed by a retired judicial officer, who is a practicing Advocate at Bangalore. The enquiry officer issued notices to the petitioners as per Annexures-M (dated 6-1-2006), n, N1 and N2 (all dated 26-6-2006) directing them to appear before him in person on 2-6-2006. The petitioners filed an application before the disciplinary authority dated 15-7-2006 seeking his permission to appoint an advocate to appear for their defence. In the said application, it is contended that they are illiterate persons and not exposed to the outer world. They do not know anything about law and procedure of disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, they want the assistance of an advocate to defend their case. The said application was rejected by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 20-7-2006. Therefore, petitioners have filed W. P. No. 10644/2006 for quashing the notices issued by the enquiry officer dated 26-6-2006 and in W. P. No. 10577/2006. they have questioned the validity of the order of the disciplinary authority dated 20-7-2006.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.