Karnataka High Court
B Rajeshwari W/O M. Shivalingaiah vs The Secretary The Govt. Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2011
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
BBMP YELAHANKA REGION BANGALORE -- 560 068. _.RESPONDENTS
Hee RE :
THIS WRIT PETITION JS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226. & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT 09.08.2005 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANX-E AND DATED. 19.92.2007 PASSED BY THE RI VIDE ANX-FL 0 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR-ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: |. ane RDE K a Even thougi: the petition is listed for recalling the order dated' 18.3.2011, with consent, the same is taken for final-disposal.
g. Cause shown is accepted. Default order dated
-- 18.3.2G61} is recalled.
3. The petitioner is questioning the order dated (9.8.2005 passed by the second respondent compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and the Government order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the Ist respondent confirming the said order and rejecting appeal. fA
a)
4. The matter arises in the following manner:
& lt is the case of the petitioner that she was selected and appointed as Second Division Clerk by the ~ third respondent. On 7.2.2002, the second respondent ne issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging misappropriation of the third -respndent Reve snue to the tune of Rs. 36. 107/-. | "the Pp petitioner submitted detailed reply to. the, said show » cause 1 notice indicating that such misappropriation has: not taken place. The enquiry officer ~ submitted 7 his "Yeport to the second respondent. 'holding - the petitioner is guilty of misappropriating ca * guin of Rs.36,107/- and recommended to the disciplinary authority accordingly. The, second. show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the second show . cause notice, The disciplinary authority rejected the reply to the second show cause notice and has accepted tHe report of the enquiry officer and recommended tor compulsory retirement. The petitioner qu estioned the ,, # a said order by way of an appeal and the said order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5 | have heard Mr.M.C.Basavaraju, lea aed counsel appearing for the petitioner, "as. well as Mr.B.V.Muralidhar, learned ecunsel. appearing for.
Corporation.
6. Learned counsel appearia " fort the: petitioner submits that initially aecoming ; ; the Corporation misappropriation Was | ta the ture of Rs.1,08.608/-- But however. out of toe said | amount a sum of Rs.72,496/- has already heen aoposited by, the petitioner. He further submits, that afier collecting the tax from the residents . 'of Bommanaballi 'the amount was sought to be deposited with the Manager. But however, the manager | was otherwise busy and the amount could not be oe "deposited. 'He submits that it cannot be said that the 'petitioner has misappropriated the amount of _R$.36,107//- belonging to the Corporation.
7 Wr.B.V.Muralidhar, learned counsel appe paring $ o fom nani oa _ ies ye Corporation submits that as on the date when the show cause notice was issued proposing to initiate enquiry, it Was found that the petitioner has, . misappropriated a sum of Rs.36.107/-. Hence. ope submits that the total amount collected was , Rs.1,08,603/- and out of it a sum of Rs.72.496/- tas. * been deposited at a later point of time. Hence. there is temporary misappropnanon He miter submits. that the finding recorded bv the en quiry, officer being a question of fact. ih e 2 saic, finding 1 ha: ving been accepted by the disciplinary authority. 'the same cannot be faulted.
8, | have perused the papers.
- _ "Appar -ntly the petitioner was at the relevant sami of tine working as the Second Division Clerk. She was entrusted with the job of collecting taxes from the ~~ residents cof Bommanahalli. Indeed, the faxes, which are 'collected are required to be deposited : with the
-- Corporation on the same day or at best the next day and that has not been done. The Enquiry officer has found on evidence that the entire amount eollected was 6 not deposited but only a part of it was deposited. Thus the petitioner was i possession of a sum of . Rs.36,107/- as on the date of when the first shovr catise | notice was issued proposing to initiate enquity. The. enquiry officer has considered the 'entire me terial 7. record and has found that the _pettioner guilty. "The reply to the second show cause. notice also did riot, spell out anything different than the yeply whieh w was given to the first show cause notice. : Since, t > faet finding authority has | ree recorded a fmding a that indeed, there is misappre priation. and that fin ding having been accepted by the disciplinary y auhorty and confirmed by the Appellate Authorit ity. fam of the view that the question . of interfer re nee, with the order of compulsory retirement would ict arise:
10, Indeed, this Court under Article 226 of the 'Constitution of India has limited furisdiction to interfere with the matters of such nature.
1. Indeed. this Court can step in arid upset the order passed by the authorities only if it is pointed out ond that the decision making process is faulty. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Court cann Lot 7 .
examine the decision itself but only can examitie. the: _ decision making process. Nothing is pointed out by the , petitioner to show that there is a fallacy in the decision making process. which is in the nature of iolation of principles of natural justice,
12. It is to be noticed the ats the petitioner was entrusted with. the work of collecting faxes from the residents of Bomma: aahalli / and the tax was collected, which is public stiahey. The petitioner is required to deposit the > entire amouiit . as collected with the . Corporation, th that has not been done. It is only a part of the ammount that was deposited and the remaining . amount to an cite of Rs.36,107/- was not deposited. : "Hence, F am ¢ of the view that sufficient material was
- placed before the enquiry officer to hold that there is _misappropriation of the public moriey.
13. Insofar as the penalty imposed is concerned, | am of the view that the petitioner has not been let off b "¢ easily inasmuch as it is compulsory retirement. T he petitioner would be entitled for other benefits like. . pension etc. Even on the question of penalty im nosed, i. _ am of the view that the same 1s commensurate wit th te :
misdemeanor of the petitioner. Having, said so the. question of interfering with the order of compulsory retirement does not arise.
Petition stands rejected. -
Smt.Mar. jul Kamadalli Jearne -d High Court Governme nt Pleader is permitted to file of memo of appearance with the Registry within four weeks.