Karnataka High Court
Sri H K Nagaraja vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2018
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1672 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI H. K. NAGARAJA
S/O. MANCHAIAH @ KARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 80/B, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
KARASAVADI ROAD,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
MANDYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA),
MANDYA-571 401,
(WHILE IN SERVICE)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBASH REDDY V., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MANDYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA)
MANDYA-571 401,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M. JYOTI, AGA FOR R-1)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FINDINGS/FINAL REPORT, DATED 28.09.2016 GIVEN BY THE
ENQUIRY OFFICER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND IN PURSUANCE OF
THE FINDINGS/FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1
DATED 7.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the legality of the final enquiry report dated 28.09.2016, and the dismissal order dated 07.12.2017, passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed with the Mandya Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short), as First Division Assistant. He was the whole sole in-charge of Accounts Section of MUDA. During his tenure of service, between February 2013 and July 2013, allegedly, an oral instruction was issued by the Commissioner, MUDA, to withdraw the deposit from the -3- existing Allahabad Bank, Mandya, and to deposit the same with the Indian Bank, Mandya. On 05.07.2013, the Commissioner, MUDA, lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Mandya Town, alleging that the Indian Bank, Mandya, has cheated MUDA of `5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore only). Initially, the case was registered with the CID. Subsequently, the case was handed over to the CBI. After investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused in the criminal case.
On 09.10.2015, the respondent No.1, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to reply to the article of charges framed against him. The allegations leveled against the petitioner were that while he was working as a First Division Assistant, and was in-charge of the Accounts Section of MUDA, during the period between February 2013 and July 2013, he -4- committed official misconduct, inasmuch as he got issued five cheques of `1,00,00,000/- each, from the account of MUDA at Allahabad Bank, towards investment in fixed deposits at Indian Bank, Mandya Branch, on the false pretext of getting loan facility for MUDA. But instead he handed over these cheques to private parties facilitating the misuse of all these cheques, and received fake receipts which resulted in the wrongful loss of `5,00,00,000/- to MUDA. The petitioner replied to the said notice. However, as his reply was found to be unsatisfactory, the respondent No.2 appointed an Enquiry Officer. The department examined twelve witnesses, and opportunities were given to the petitioner to cross-examine them. The petitioner also examined two witnesses in defence. However, after completing the departmental enquiry, on 28.09.2016, the enquiry officer submitted his final report. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he replied. However, -5- notwithstanding the reply, by order dated 07.12.2017, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. V. Subhash Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that Mr. Syed Ajgar Imam, D.W.8, has clearly stated that he was working in the Bangalore Forensic Science Laboratory as an expert of documents. On 21.09.2013, the Superintendent of Police had submitted five cheques and five deposit receipts. According to him, the documents had been written by one Mr. K. Anand, and not by the petitioner. Thus, the testimony of this witness absolves the petitioner of any liability. However, the same has not been relied upon by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the final report submitted by the enquiry officer, and the punishment order, deserve to be set aside by this Court.
-6-
4. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the final report of the enquiry officer, and the impugned order.
5. In the case of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS V. P. GUNASEKARAN [(2015) 2 SCC 610], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has prescribed the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, while dealing with the departmental enquiries, and the punishment order. According to the Apex Court, under Articles 226 and 227, this Court is not permitted to re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law, go into the adequacy of the evidence, go into the reliability of the evidence, interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based, correct the error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be, and go into the proportionality of the punishment -7- unless it shocks the conscience. Considering the restrictions placed by the Apex Court upon the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227, the issue of adequacy of the evidence, and issue with regard to conclusions in the enquiry, cannot be gone into by this Court, especially when the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. The petitioner has not pleaded before this Court that either his rights under the principles of natural justice have been violated, or that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel, is clearly unacceptable.
6. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that where a person is given responsibility over monies of an establishment, where his integrity becomes highly doubtful, dismissal is the only punishment that can be imposed upon such a -8- delinquent employee. Once the integrity of an employee is doubtful, the said employee cannot be imposed upon the employer. (Refer to MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BAHADURGARH v. KRISHNAN BIHARI & ORS., [AIR 1996 SC 1249], U.P.S.R.T.C. v. VINOD KUMAR [(2008) 1 SCC 115], U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SURESH CHAND SHARMA [(2010) 6 SCC 555]. Considering the fact in the present case, the petitioner is alleged to have caused a loss of `5,00,00,000/- to MUDA, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are legally justified in dismissing the petitioner from his service.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to cost.
SD/-
JUDGE RD