S RAMANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a I Division Clerk in the Industries and Commerce Department of the 1st respondent- State of Karnataka. He was working in the. Office of the Director of Industries and Commerce, Bangalore, on 1-2-1974. He was served with a charge memo dated 1-2-1974 and the same was issued by the Assistant Director of Vigilance and Inquiry Officer, State Vigilance Commission, Bangalore, The charge contained in the memo was as follows:

(2.) The charge was accompained by a statement of allegations. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report. It is pertinent to state that the enquiry was a joint enquiry against the 'petitioner who belongs to Class III services under the State and another Shri Ankaiah, Peon, who belongs to Class IV services under the State. In para 11 of the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer, has stated that the conduct on the part of A.G.O. 1 (the petitioner) -which was not shown to have been actuated with the oblique motive of securing pecuniary advantage for himself or his wife the permit holder, could not amount to misconduct calling for disciplinary action. In that view, he held that the charge against A.G.O. 1 had not been substantiated and accordingly he recorded a finding that charge against the petitioner, as not proved. In spite of this finding of the Enquiry Officer, the 1st respondent State passed an order on 3-12-1974 in No, CI 216 ACI 73 inflicting punishment specified in Clause 8(iv-a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which entailed reduction by two incremental stages in the time scale applicable to the petitioner for a period of two years with a direction that he shall not earn increments during the said period of two years The reduction so effected, was also required to have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The operative portion of the order is extracted below for convenience:

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art- 226 of the Constitution urging two grounds that the impugned order is liable to be struck down for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the Rules and further that the order was passed disregarding the evidence in his case. However, at the time of arguments, it is the first of the grounds which is pressed into service and not the second In a number of cases, the Supreme Court and 'this Court have held that in the disciplinary proceedings the requirements or sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the Rules or similar Rules of other States, is mandatory. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the Rules is extracted below for convenience: The Disciplinary Authority shall. if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.