Karnataka High Court
Sri K V Rama Reddy vs The National Seeds Corporation Limited on 20 June, 2012
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION No. 14522/2008 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN :
--------------
Sri. K V RAMA REDDY
S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT GRADE-II
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION
LIMITED, UAS CAMPUS, HEBBAL
BANGALORE, AND R/A. No. 68
PANTHARAPALYA, NAYANDAHALLI
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER
(By M/S. SUBBA RAO & CO., ADVS.)
AND :
-------
1. THE NATIONAL SEEDS
CORPORATION LTD.,
(A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BEEJA BHAVAN, PUSA COMPLEX
NEW DELHI - 110 012.
2
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
BEEJA BHAVAN, PUSA COMPLEX
NEW DELHI - 110 012.
3. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
(ADMN.) NATIONAL SEEDS
CORPORATION LIMITED
BEEJA BHAVAN, PUSA COMPLEX
NEW DELHI - 110 012. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV.)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2007 PASSED
BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AT ANENXURE-Q AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of penalty dated 22.11.2007 Annexure Q and the order of Appellate Authority dated 08.07.2008
- Annexure S. 3
2. The petitioner joined the services of respondent Corporation in the year 1973. From time to time the petitioner was promoted. As on January 2002 the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade II. For certain irregularities and misappropriation of Corporation funds to the tune of Rs.63.67 lakhs petitioner was kept under suspension on 24.01.2002. Subsequently on 12.03.2003 articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and the impugned order of penalty dated 22.11.2007 - Annexure Q came to be passed dismissing the petitioner from service and adjusting the gratuity and leave encashment benefits towards the loss sustained by the respondent Bank. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal and the same came to be dismissed under the impugned order dated 08.08.2008 - Annexure S. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
4
4. Before the Enquiry officer petitioner made a request to permit him to have the assistance of a legal practitioner to assist him in the enquiry proceedings and the same was turned down vide order dated 21.11.2003. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of enquiring authority rejecting his request for assistance of a legal practitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 50793/2003 and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 16.04.2004 and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the request of the petitioner. The respondent Corporation being aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge approached the Apex Court in civil appeal No. 4035/2006. The Supreme Court vide order dated 29.09.2006 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of this Court in W.P. No. 50793/2003 and made an observation that the petitioner himself would be in a better position to explain the circumstances on the basis of documents. The relevant portion is as under:
"Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation has brought to our notice office memorandum dated 21.11.2003 by which by which the prayer to engage a legal practitioner to act as a defence assistant was 5 rejected. Reference was made to the rules, though no specific reference has been made to the discretion available to be exercised in particular circumstances of a case. The same has to be noted in the background of the basis of prayer made for the purpose. The reasons indicated by appellant for the purpose are (a) amount alleged to have been misappropriated is Rs.63.67 lakhs
(b) number of documents and number of witnesses are relied on by the respondent, and (c) the prayer for availing services of the retired employee has been rejected and the respondent is unable to get any assistance to get any other able co-worker.
None of these factors are really relevant for the purpose of deciding us as to whether he should be granted permission to engage the legal practitioner. As noted earlier, he had to explain the factual position with reference to the documents sought to be utilized against him. A legal practitioner would not be in a position to assist the respondent in this regard.
It has not been shown as to how a legal practitioner would be in a better position to assist the respondent so far as the documents in question are concerned. As a matter of fact, he would be in a better position to explain and throw light on the question of 6 acceptability or otherwise and the relevance of the documents in question.
The High Court has not considered these aspects and has been swayed by the fact that the respondent was physically handicapped person and the amount involved is very huge. As option to be assisted by another employee is given the respondent, he was in no way prejudiced by the refusal to permit engagement of a legal practitioner. The High Court's order is, therefore, unsustainable and is set aside. Appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs."
5. By the time the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in civil appeal No. 4035/2006 the Enquiry officer completed the examination of prosecution witness and marking of the documents as early as on 02.06.2006. Thereafter the Enquiry officer by only accepting the written defence of petitioner dated 29.01.2007 concluded the enquiry proceedings and submitted the enquiry report on 31.05.2007 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. Thus there was no fair opportunity to the petitioner to 7 defend himself in the enquiry proceedings. In the circumstances the impugned order of penalty and the order of Appellate Authority are bad in law.
6. As observed by the Apex Court in civil appeal No. 4035/2006 the petitioner is entitled to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings and to explain his defence with reference to the documents produced in the enquiry. Therefore an opportunity is to be provided to the petitioner to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings.
7. For the reasons stated above, the following;
ORDER
i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.
ii. It is held that the enquiry report is opposed to
principles of natural justice and as such the same is set aside.
iii. Consequently the impugned order of penalty dated 22.11.2007 Annexure Q and the order of Appellate 8 Authority dated 08.07.2008 Annexure S are hereby quashed.
iv. The matter is remanded to the enquiring authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law by providing an opportunity to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
LRS.