Karnataka High Court
Vijay Kumar G. Sulakhe vs State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2018
Bench: B.Veerappa, H.T.Narendra Prasad
:1:
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WP NO.104460/2018, C/W WP NOs.104461/2018 AND
104462/2018 [S-KAT]
IN WP No.104460/2018
BETWEEN:
VIJAY KUMAR G. SULAKHE
S/O GURUNATH RAO,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COMMISSIONER,
GADAG-BETGERI, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, GADAG.
R/O: HUGAR TOOTHA,
SIDDHARAMESHWAR NAGAR,
GADAG, DIST: GADAG.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLAURU-560001.
2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY
:2:
REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-11
AND ENQUIRY OFFICER,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLAURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA. FOR R1,
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV.
FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE
ORDER IMPUGNED DATED:26.06.2018 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.5018/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" TO THE
WRIT PETITION. (B) ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.5018/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
VIDE ANNEXURE-"B" TO THE WRIT PEITTION.
IN WP No.104461/2018
BETWEEN:
VIJAY KUMAR G. SULAKHE
S/O GURUNATH RAO,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COMMISSIONER,
GADAG-BETGERI, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, GADAG.
R/O: HUGAR TOOTHA,
SIDDHARAMESHWAR NAGAR,
GADAG, DIST: GADAG.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV. AND
SRI. PRITHVI K.S., ADV.)
:3:
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLAURU-560001.
2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY
REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-11
AND ENQUIRY OFFICER,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLAURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA. FOR R1,
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV.
FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE
ORDER IMPUGNED DATED:26.06.2018 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.5019/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" TO THE
WRIT PETITION. (B) ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.5019/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
VIDE ANNEXURE-"B" TO THE WRIT PEITTION.
IN WP NO.104462/2018
BETWEEN:
V.P. KATWAL
S/O PRATAPSINGH KATEWAL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
:4:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GAJENDRAGAD,
RESIDING AT PACHAKSARANAGAR,
BEHIND K.V.S.R. COLLEGE,
GADAG-582101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLAURU-560001.
2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY
REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-11
AND ENQUIRY OFFICER,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLAURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA. FOR R1,
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV.
FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE
ORDER IMPUGNED DATED:26.06.2018 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.5020/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" TO THE
WRIT PETITION. (B) ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.5020/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
VIDE ANNEXURE-"B" TO THE WRIT PEITTION.
:5:
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed against the order dated 26.06.2018 made in application Nos. 5018/2018, 5019/2018 and 5020/2018 rejecting the applications of the petitioners on merits as well as on limitation.
2. The petitioner Sri. Vijay Kumar G. Sulakhe filed the application in Nos.5018/2018 and 5019/2018 before Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short "KAT") challenging the order dated 17.05.2017 as per Annexure-A15 for entrustment of the case under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the KCSs(CCA) Rules, 1957 for short) by the Government and articles of charge issued dated 14.09.2017 as per Annexure-A16 by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha and also challenged the entrustment order dated 22.12.2016 as :6: per Annexure-A20 by the Government and articles of charge issued by the third respondent, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer dated 07.08.2017 as per Anneuxre-21 in respect of the two charges.
3. Sri. V.P. Katewal filed an application in No.5020/2018 challenging the order dated 17.05.2017 as per Annexure-A6 by the State Government for entrustment of the case to the Lokayuktha and article of charges dated 14.09.2017 as per Anneuxre-A7 issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha.
I. Facts of the case :
4. It is the case of the petitioner Sri. Vijaya Kumar G. Sulakhe that he was appointed as daily wage employee in the Gadag Betageri Municipality in the year 1981 and the service came to be regularized on 27.11.1996 to the post of Junior Health Inspector at :7: Gadag Betageri Municipality w.e.f. 02.11.1991 and the petitioner Sri. V.P. Katewal was working as Town Municipal Council, Gajendragad. The things to thus :
One Mr. Huligeppa S. Bandiwaddar filed the complaint on 13.12.2012 before the Lokayuktha alleging that the irregularities in the civil work carried out at Town Panchayath, Naregal. The Lokayuktha conducted the investigation in pursuance of the said complaint, prepared a preliminary investigation report. On the basis of the report submitted by the Lokayuktha, the State Government exercising the powers under Section 14A of the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 has entrusted the matter to the Lokayuktha for conducting disciplinary enquiry proceedings against the petitioners. On the basis of the said entrustment, the third respondent -
the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer, Lokayuktha issued articles of charge to both the petitioners on 14.09.2017. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the applications stated supra before KAT :8: challenging both the entrustment order and articles of charges issued by the respondents.
5. The KAT considering the entire material on record by the impugned common order dated 26.06.2018 rejected the applications filed by the petitioners on merits as well as on limitation. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed.
II. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties :
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri. Basavaraj Bannur, the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the KAT rejecting the applications are erroneous, contrary to law. He would further contended that the specific grounds urged by the petitioners before KAT are that the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioners :9: during discharge of their duties as Municipal servants.
Hence, the State Government has no jurisdiction to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. He would further contended that Sri. Vijay Kumar V. Salukhe has become Government servant only on 10.10.2014 by the order dated 10.10.2014 as per Annexure-A5, prior to that he was not a Government servant. Therefore, the initiation of departmental enquiry by the State Government is totally without jurisdiction.
8. He further contended that the articles of charge issued by the third respondent - the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer, Karnataka Lokayuktha dated 14.09.2017 is without authority of law as he is not a disciplinary authority and he has not obtained any prior approval from the first respondent to the articles of charges. Therefore, the very proceedings of entrustment made by the Government and issuance of articles of charge by the : 10 : Registrar of Enquiries and Enquiry Officer, Lokayuktha is totally without jurisdiction.
9. He would further contended that the investigation Officer did not given reasonable opportunities to the applicants before submitting the investigation report to the State Government and there is a delay in issuance of articles of charges and the charges are not specific. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions by quashing the impugned order passed by the KAT.
10. Per contra, Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, the learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, the learned counsel for the second and third respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the KAT. They would further contended that the State Government exercising the powers under provisions of Rule 14A of the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 has entrusted the matter to the Upalokayukta. Based on the said entrustment, the : 11 : Upalokayuktha has issued articles of charges. Therefore, the very applications filed against the entrustment of case to the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha and issuance of articles of charges are not maintainable in view of the dictum of this Court in the case of Mr.Jayaprakash S/o.Late Ramesh V/s. State of Karnataka, the Secretary, Panchayath and Rural Development made in writ petition No.23522/2016 vide order dated 04.10.2016 and also in the case of Dr. Praveen Kumar S/o. Late. D.M. Balakrishna V/s. The State of Karnataka, R/p by its Secretary to Horticulture Department made in W.P. No.101441/2018 vide order dated 18.06.2018.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the third applicant/petitioner Sri. V.P. Katewal was a Government servant. Therefore, he has no grievance against the entrustment and the articles of charge issued by the respondents : 12 : and the counsel for the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
III. Points for determination :
12. In view of the above rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in the present writ petitions are :
1. Whether the entrustment of the case by the State Government under Rule 14A of the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and the articles of charge issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha can be a ground to file application before the KAT to challenge the same ?
2. Whether the petitioners have made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the KAT exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India ?: 13 :
IV. For consideration :
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the entire materials on record carefully.
14. It is an undisputed fact that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Mr.Huligeppa Shankar Bandiwaddar before the Lokayukta alleging irregularities in the civil works carried out at Town Panchayath, Naregal, the Lokayuktha conducted the investigation in respect of the alleged civil works and prepared a preliminary investigation report and submitted to the Government on 04.06.2015, alleging irregularities committed by the present petitioners and others and spent unnecessary Rs.95.24 lakhs towards expenditure. Based on the said report, the State Government by the order dated 17.05.2017 exercising the powers under the provisions of Rule 14A of KCSs(CCA) Rules entrusted the matter to the Upa- : 14 : Lokayuktha. Based on the said entrustment, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha issued articles of charges.
15. The main grievance of the petitioners is that some of the petitioners are not Government employees as on the date of the report submitted by the Upa- Lokayuktha and the Government has no jurisdiction to entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha for enquiry. It is only disciplinary authority has to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry, and the articles of charges issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, is totally without jurisdiction.
16. For better understanding, it is relevant to know the definition of "competent authority", "public servant" defined under the provisions of Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984. Section 2(4) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 reads as under:
"2. Definitions -: 15 :
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) xxx
(4) "Competent authority" in relation to a
public servant means. -
(a) in the case of Chief Minister or a member of the State Legislature, the Governor acting in his discretion;
(b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary, the Chief Minister;
(c) in the case of a Government servant other than a Secretary, the government of Karnataka;
(d) in the case of any other public servant, such authority as may be prescribed;"
17. The public servant defined under the provisions of Section 2 (12) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act reads as under :
xxxxx "(12) "public servant" means a person who is or was at any time,-
(a) xxx : 16 :
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) xxx
(e) xxx
(f) xxx
(g) A person in the service or pay of,
(i) a local authority in the State of Karnataka;
(ii) a statutory body or a corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act, owned or controlled by the State Government and any other board or corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein, by notification, from time to time, specify;
(iii) a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government, or any company which is a subsidiary of such company'
(iv) a society registered or deemed to have been : 17 : registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is subject to the control of the State Government and which is notified in this behalf in the official Gazette'
(v) a co-operative society'
(vi) a university;"
18. A combined reading of the said provisions makes it very clear that in the case of any other public servant, such authority as may be prescribed or a person in the service or of in a local authority in the State of Karnataka. The provisions of the Lokayuktha Act has to be applied because of the applicability of the rules of Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 to the services of the petitioners. Even under the said rules, it was made clear that the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 do apply in regard to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. The applicability of the said rules 1957 is distinctly : 18 : stated in Clause (1) of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities Rules, 2010, which reads as under :
11. Application of certain other rules - Without prejudice to these rules, the provisions of .-
(1) The Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 shall apply subject to modifications specified in Schedule III.
19. Of course, under the said clause (1) of Rule 11, the Rules of 1957 apply to the employees like the petitioners subject to the modifications specified in Schedule III to the Rules of 2010. But, such modifications in Schedule III have no bearing on the subject matter of these petitions. Under the said Schedule-III, only the authorities, who are competent to impose punishment, as also the Appellate Authorities have been specified. Such provisions do not, in any manner, nullify or override the effect of the Act of 1984 and the Rules made thereunder. In view of the above said provisions of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and Karnataka Municipalities : 19 : (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government is not a competent authority to entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha and the Upa-Lokayuktha has no jurisdiction to issue articles of charges, cannot be accepted and required to be rejected.
20. It is also not in dispute that the Upa- Lokayuktha had given opportunity to the petitioners before submitting a report to the State Government under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections, and thereafter submitted the report. Admittedly, the present petitioners have participated in the enquiry proceedings and when the matter was posted for cross-examination of witnesses by the delinquent officials, at that stage, the petitioners sought for adjournment for cross- examination of the witness and the matter was adjourned and thereafter, they have filed applications : 20 : before the KAT challenging the very entrustment by the Government and issuance of articles of charge. Once the petitioners participated in the enquiry proceedings without raising the locus of the State or the Upa- Lokayukha to proceed against the petitioners, it is not open for them to challenge the same after participation and the applications filed before the KAT by the petitioners is an after thought, liable to be rejected in view of the Law of estoppel under the provisions of 115 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
"S.115. When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing."
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act in the case of Ashok Kumar and another V/s. State of Bihar and others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 at para Nos.13, 14, 17 and 18 held as under: : 21 :
"13. The law on the subject has been crystallized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be no successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participate. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S Vinodh Kumar, this Court held that (SCC p.107, para 18) "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission.)": 22 :
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttarakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if hey had cleared he test, the respondents would not be raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that : (SCC p.318, para 18) "18. it is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, : 23 : thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
18. In Chandigarh Admn. V. Jasmine Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selecton process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this Court held that : (SCC p.500, para 17) "17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result.
However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the : 24 : interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
22. It is an admitted fact that on the complaint made by one Mr.Huligeppa Shankar Bandiwaddar, the Upa-Lokayuktha conducted the enquiry and submitted the report that there is a prima-facie case against the petitioners and based on the entrustment, articles of charges issued having participated before the Enquiry Officer. It is not open for them to challenge before the KAT as the same was pre-mature. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in an identical circumstances considering the power of the State Government to entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha and issuance of article of charges in the case of Gopal Hanamanth Kase V/s. The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development reported in 2018 (3) KCCR 2646 (DB), dismissed the petitions holding that Government can entrust the matter on the basis of the report : 25 : submitted by the Lokayuktha. The said judgment passed by this Court has reached finality.
23. It is well settled law that the charge memo does not disclose any misconduct for which charge have been framed, the Tribunal or the Court could not justify at this stage to go into whether charges are true or could be go into, for it would be a matter on the production of evidence for consideration at the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. At this stage, framing of charge, statement of facts and the charge sheet supplied are required to be looked into by the Court or Tribunal is the nature of the charge, charges and Court, Tribunal should not interfere against the charge memo issued. It is for the delinquent officials to file objections and contest in the enquiry proceedings.
24. It is also a well settled that ordinarily application before the Tribunal or writ does not lie against the charge sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. : 26 : It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. The charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Therefore, the charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court.
25. Our view is fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others V/s. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 at para Nos.8, 10 and 12 reads as under:
"8. The law does not permit quashing of charge- sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the : 27 : disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge- sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey, Union of India v. Ashok Kacker, Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia, Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI and Govt. of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy.)
10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies : 28 : when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v. Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.)
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not b concluded in a : 29 : reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings.
V. Conclusion :
26. For the reasons stated above, the first point raised has to be answered in the negative holding that the entrustment of the case by the State Government under Rule 14A of KCSRs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and articles of charge issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha is not a ground to file the applications before the KAT to challenge the same.
27. The Tribunal considering the entire material on record in a proper prospective rightly dismissed the applications. The same is in accordance with law and the 2nd point raised has to be answered in the negative holding that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the KAT in exercising the powers under provisions of : 30 : Articles of 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
28. However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court, while deciding the writ petitions, shall not influence the inquiry officer/disciplinary authority and to take decision independently /strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MNS/