Lingappa Shivajogappa Hutagonnavar Vs. Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1173111
CourtKarnataka Dharwad High Court
Decided OnJun-02-2014
Case NumberWrit Petition No.63136 of 2012 (GM-RES)
JudgeH. BILLAPPA
AppellantLingappa Shivajogappa Hutagonnavar
RespondentHubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation and Others
Excerpt:
(prayer: this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent bearing no.hdmc/113,114,199/jae/2000 dated 10.12.2011 at annexure-j, and etc.) 1. in this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the 1st respondent in case no.hdmc/113,114,119/jae/2000 vide annexure-j. 2. by the impugned order at annexure-j, the 1st respondent has appointed sri.d.v.shet, retd. district judge, dharwad, as enquiry officer and sri.s.s.nayak, as presenting officer. 3. aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. briefly stated the facts are: the petitioner joined service as work inspector. subsequently, he was promoted as junior engineer. the first respondent served articles of charges dated 27.10.2005 and 8.11.2005 on the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was involved in misappropriation cases. the petitioner denied the charges. therefore, the first respondent appointed an inquiry officer to enquire into the allegations. without holding any inquiry the inquiry officer submitted his report on 12.08.2006 and 14.8.2006. the petitioner was asked to submit his objections to the inquiry report. thereafter, the disciplinary authority by order dated 16.12.2006 reverted the petitioner from the post of junior engineer to the post of work inspector. that was challenged by the petitioner in wp.no.19017/2006. this court remitted the matter for fresh consideration. thereafter, the 1st respondent by order dated 19.11.2009 initiated fresh enquiry by appointing sri.a.a.hoolgari, retired district judge, as inquiry officer. the inquiry officer after holding enquiry submitted his report on 01.07.2010 holding that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. thereafter, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 10.12.2011 for fresh enquiry by appointing sri.d.v.shet, retired district judge, dharwad, as inquiry officer and one sri.s.s.nayak as presenting officer. aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is in gross violation of rule 11-a(1) and (2) of karnataka civil services (cc and a) rules, 1957. further he submitted that the 1st respondent has no authority to order for fresh inquiry and it is wholly without jurisdiction. he also submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it cannot be sustained in law. 6. as against this, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 1st respondent exercising his power under rule 11(5)(c) of the karnataka civil services (cc and a) rules, 1957, has ordered for fresh enquiry by appointing fresh inquiry officer and presenting officer and therefore, it does not call for interference. he also submitted that the previous inquiry officer has failed to conduct the inquiry in proper manner. further he submitted that the charges against the petitioner are grave in nature and therefore, fresh enquiry has been ordered and therefore, it does not call for interference. 7. i have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. the point that arise for my consideration is, whether the impugned order calls for interference? 9. it is relevant to note, the petitioner was served with articles of charges alleging that he was involved in misappropriation cases. the petitioner has denied the charges. the inquiry officer has submitted his report without holding any inquiry. thereafter, the disciplinary authority by order dated 16.12.2006 has reverted the petitioner from the post of junior engineer to the post of work inspector. that was challenged by the petitioner in wp.no.19017/2006. the matter has been remitted for fresh consideration. thereafter, the 1st respondent has initiated fresh inquiry by appointing sri.a.a.hoolageri, retired district judge, as inquiry officer. he has submitted his report after holding inquiry stating that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. thereafter, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order for fresh inquiry by appointing sri.d.v.shet, retired district judge, dharwad, as inquiry officer and sri.s.s.nayak, as presenting officer exercising power under rule 11(5)(c) of the karnataka civil services (cc and a) rules, 1957. it reads as under: "11(5)(c). procedure for imposing major penalties: where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any articles of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a government servant or a legal practitioner to be known as "presenting officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge." a bare reading of rule 11(5)(c) shows that the disciplinary authority can appoint presenting officer to present the case on its behalf. rule 11-a (1) and (2) of the kcs (cc and a) rules read as follows: "11.a. action on the inquiry report- (1) the disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule-11 as far as may be. (2) the disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any 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." 10. it is clear, the disciplinary authority can order for further enquiry and if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority it can record its own finding if the evidence on record is sufficient. instead of that, the disciplinary authority without assigning any reasons and without recording any finding has ordered for fresh enquiry by appointing sri.d.v.shet, retired district judge, dharwad, as inquiry officer and sri.s.s.nayak as presenting officer which is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, it cannot be sustained in law. 11. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide annexure-j dated 10.12.2011 is hereby quashed. the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent with a direction to reconsider the same, in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made in the course of this order and also keeping in view the rule 11-a(1) and (2) of the karnataka civil services (ccand a) rules, 1957.
Judgment:

(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Passed By The 1st Respondent Bearing No.Hdmc/113,114,199/Jae/2000 Dated 10.12.2011 At Annexure-J, And Etc.)

1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the 1st respondent in case No.HDMC/113,114,119/JAE/2000 vide Annexure-J.

2. By the impugned order at Annexure-J, the 1st respondent has appointed Sri.D.V.Shet, retd. District Judge, Dharwad, as Enquiry Officer and Sri.S.S.Nayak, as Presenting Officer.

3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Briefly stated the facts are:

The petitioner joined service as Work Inspector. Subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Engineer. The first respondent served articles of charges dated 27.10.2005 and 8.11.2005 on the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was involved in misappropriation cases. The petitioner denied the charges. Therefore, the first respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations. Without holding any inquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.08.2006 and 14.8.2006. The petitioner was asked to submit his objections to the Inquiry Report. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 16.12.2006 reverted the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Work Inspector. That was challenged by the petitioner in WP.No.19017/2006. This Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

Thereafter, the 1st respondent by order dated 19.11.2009 initiated fresh enquiry by appointing Sri.A.A.Hoolgari, retired District Judge, as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after holding enquiry submitted his report on 01.07.2010 holding that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 10.12.2011 for fresh enquiry by appointing Sri.D.V.Shet, retired District Judge, Dharwad, as Inquiry Officer and one Sri.S.S.Nayak as Presenting Officer. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is in gross violation of Rule 11-A(1) and (2) of Karnataka Civil Services (CC and A) Rules, 1957. Further he submitted that the 1st respondent has no authority to order for fresh inquiry and it is wholly without jurisdiction. He also submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it cannot be sustained in law.

6. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 1st respondent exercising his power under Rule 11(5)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CC and A) Rules, 1957, has ordered for fresh enquiry by appointing fresh Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and therefore, it does not call for interference. He also submitted that the previous Inquiry Officer has failed to conduct the inquiry in proper manner. Further he submitted that the charges against the petitioner are grave in nature and therefore, fresh enquiry has been ordered and therefore, it does not call for interference.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

8. The point that arise for my consideration is, whether the impugned order calls for interference?

9. It is relevant to note, the petitioner was served with articles of charges alleging that he was involved in misappropriation cases. The petitioner has denied the charges. The Inquiry Officer has submitted his report without holding any inquiry. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 16.12.2006 has reverted the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Work Inspector. That was challenged by the petitioner in WP.NO.19017/2006. The matter has been remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has initiated fresh inquiry by appointing Sri.A.A.Hoolageri, retired District Judge, as Inquiry Officer. He has submitted his report after holding inquiry stating that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order for fresh inquiry by appointing Sri.D.V.Shet, retired District Judge, Dharwad, as Inquiry Officer and Sri.S.S.Nayak, as Presenting Officer exercising power under Rule 11(5)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CC and A) Rules, 1957. It reads as under:

"11(5)(c). Procedure for imposing major penalties: Where the Disciplinary Authority itself inquires into any articles of charge or appoints an Inquiring Authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge." A bare reading of Rule 11(5)(c) shows that the Disciplinary Authority can appoint Presenting Officer to present the case on its behalf.

Rule 11-A (1) and (2) of the KCS (CC and A) Rules read as follows:

"11.A. Action on the inquiry report- (1) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule-11 as far as may be.

(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any 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."

10. It is clear, the Disciplinary Authority can order for further enquiry and if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority it can record its own finding if the evidence on record is sufficient. Instead of that, the Disciplinary Authority without assigning any reasons and without recording any finding has ordered for fresh enquiry by appointing Sri.D.V.Shet, retired District Judge, Dharwad, as Inquiry Officer and Sri.S.S.Nayak as Presenting Officer which is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, it cannot be sustained in law.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-J dated 10.12.2011 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent with a direction to reconsider the same, in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made in the course of this order and also keeping in view the Rule 11-A(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCand A) Rules, 1957.