IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOS.36747 – 36748 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI. M. RAVI SON OF MUNIVENKATARAMANAIAH WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CO OPERATIVE (AUDIT) RAMANAGARA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CO OPERATIVE (AUDIT) LAKSHMIPURAM, NARAYANASHASTHRI ROAD, MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 004.
(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S.BUILDING, .. PETITIONER BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPODENT (BY SRI.I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT, DATED 12.11.2013, IMPOSING PUNISHMENT OF STOPPAGE OF 2 INCREMENTS WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEX-A AND THE ORDER IS CONFIRMED IN THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELATE TRIBUNAL, IN APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 2014 DATED 29.11.2017 VIDE ANNEX-B;
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.M. SHYAM PRASAD J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The applicant before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, the ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.50 of 2014 has preferred this writ petition impugning the order dated 29.11.2017 whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application for quashing the order dated 12.11.2013 issued by the State under Rule 8(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 imposing a penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.
2. The petitioner, while working as Deputy Director of Co-operative Audit at Haveri District, was served with a charge memo alleging that the petitioner had failed to examine the details submitted by Sri Basaveshwara Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Ranebennur for a sum of Rs.34,852/- and recommended ineligible bill for a sum of Rs.4,376/- for payment. These claims related to waiving of interest and penalty to those who had availed 'weaver loans' from Urban Co-operative Banks. A retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as an enquiry officer who conducted a detailed enquiry. The said retired District and Sessions Judge and Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 21.11.2002 holding that the charges against petitioner were definitely and undoubtedly established. The disciplinary authority issued the second show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply on 28.1.2013. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s reply thereto, accepted the report and imposed the aforesaid penalty of withholding two future annual increments with cumulative effect.
3. The petitioner impugned the disciplinary authority’s order dated 12.11.2013 before the Tribunal essentially contending that the enquiry officer had not considered the evidence in proper perspective and therefore, the imposition of the aforesaid penalty was vitiated. Further, the petitioner also contended that the penalty imposed was highly disproportionate as the allegations against the petitioner related to negligence in routine administrative actions of endorsing the claims for waiver of loan/interest.
4. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the material on record, has concluded that the enquiry officer has considered the evidence placed on record in the enquiry on the touch stone of the broad preponderance of probabilities. Further, the Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner, a responsible officer of the State, should have been diligent and could not have endorsed and recommended ineligible bills for waiver resulting in financial loss to the state exchequer. Furthermore, the Tribunal has concluded that as the charge of negligence in financial matters is established against the petitioner, the penalty imposed was just and did not call for any interference as the imposition of penalty could not be termed as shocking or disproportionate.
5. Thus, the Tribunal has refused to interfere with either the finding of guilt or the imposition of penalty on the ground that the enquiry officer has considered the material on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities (a permissible scale for assessing the probative value of materials against the delinquent in a departmental proceedings) and the penalty imposed is not shocking to judicial conscience. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued reiterating the very submissions made before the Tribunal, in the light of the materials on record, and given the limited jurisdiction of this court, this court is of the considered opinion that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv