IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.21193 OF 2014 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI.S.K.PARASHURAMA RAO, SON OF M.K.SHAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, SECTION OFFICER (RETIRED), KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESIDING AT NO.315, 9TH CROSS, SHASTRI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 028. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2013 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO. 8619 OF 2001 BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU,AT ANNEXURE-A, BY ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner submits that he retired on 28.02.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against him on various charges. That Articles of charge has already been issued to him on 28.03.1992. He submitted his reply to the same. Being dissatisfied, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter disagreed with the reasoning and findings of the Enquiring Authority and therefore issued a second show-cause notice to the petitioner. Questioning the same, the instant application No.8619 of 2001 was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 29.08.2013, rejected the application. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the application. That the second show-cause notice issued to him also intends the proposed punishment against him. That the same runs contrary to the rules of natural justice in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC 768 (HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED Vs. MAHESH DAHIYA).
Therein, at para 31 the Supreme Court has observed that the opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority to impose a punishment prior to considering the reply of the delinquent therefore violates the principles of natural justice. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed.
3. The same is disputed by the respondent’s learned counsel. He submits that the reliance placed on the Judgment by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. That the issue on hand is covered by the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported in 1964 (4) SCR 718 (UNION OF INDIA Vs. H.C. GOEL).
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. In the Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reference is made to para 31 of the order. It is therein stated that before making an opinion with regard to punishment which is to be imposed on the delinquent, the delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit his representation / reply on the enquiry report which finds the charge proved against a delinquent. Not having done so and proposing a punishment, violates the principle of natural justice. In considering the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. H.C. GOEL, reported in (1964) 4 SCR 718. It considered the said Judgment while extracting the Judgment reported in B.C. CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA {(1995) 6 SCC 749)}, wherein a reference was made to the aforesaid Judgment in GOEL’s case. However, the reference made to GOEL’s case was on a question wherein, if the conclusion upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from a patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, whether a writ of certiorari can be issued. However, that is not the point which is being canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the punishment could not have been proposed without considering his objections.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench Judgment in GOEL’s case held in para 15 as follows:
“ 15. Sometimes, several charges are framed and findings are recorded by the enquiry officer in respect of them. In such cases, Government may accept some findings and may reject others, and it has naturally to proceed to take the next step in the light of its own conclusions. Such a case arose before this Court in State of Assam v. Bimil Kumar Pandit (Civil Appeal No.832 of 1962 decided on February 12, 1963). Dealing with the requirements which the second notice must satisfy in such a case, this Court has held that the said notice must indicate to the public servant clearly the grounds on which the Government provisionally intends to act in imposing the proposed punishment specified in the notice.”
6. Therefore, it is the Judgment of the Constitution Bench that would have to be considered so far as the question involved in the case on hand. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GOEL’s case has very clearly held that the notice must indicate to the public servant the grounds on which the Government provisionally intends to act in imposing the proposed punishment specified in the notice. Therefore it cannot be said that the proposed punishment as specified in the notice would violate the rules of natural justice. It is only a proposal. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE sac*