SHANKARALINGAIAH Vs. MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is coming up for 'Hearing on Interlocutory Application', with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) The petitioner is working as Deputy General Manager in the respondent Company, which is an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka. The respondent Company, on 13.07.2009 issued a show cause notice alleging that the petitioner has caused financial loss of Rs. 63,38,13,427/-. It appears that thereafter, the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a report to the State Government on 18.12.2008, where once again allegation is made against the petitioner that he has caused financial loss of Rs. 63,38,13,427/- to the respondent Company along with the Managing Director of the Company and therefore fresh inquiry was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner contends that at the instance of the Hon'ble Lokayukta and the State Government, the Managing Director of the respondent Company submitted a report to the State Government, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not caused any financial loss to the respondent Company. The said report is dated 20.03.2009. Nevertheless, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 5868/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on 06.02.2015 directing the competent authority under Section 12(4) of the Lokayukta Act to take a decision and pass an order within a period of two weeks. However, the petitioner was asked to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report on 15.12.2010 to the State Government inter alia stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved. Instead of accepting the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Company issued a second show cause notice dated 08.06.2017 stating that the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer was vitiated on account of certain discrepancies. The discrepancies have been specified in the show cause notice. The petitioner has given a representation dated 17.06.2017 requesting to withdraw second show cause notice. Thereafter, by communication dated 20.07.2017, another Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry afresh. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.