Sri Ramakanth Hebballi vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ramakanth Hebballi vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2011

ra reported irrequiarities comtmniited BY URS Management of the Company in the matter of Tran Gre-Export to China Company passed a. resolution dated 30.06.2011, requesting.. Lokayukka tG. investigate into the matter.

gy i 5 Momo rbrrt £ {~ -prery aa a, PPE i GCYV Scary VED! trie nt o LOPE rce ee avn} ae oy

i) oy fan) into the matter. A preliminary enquiry report cated was submitted by Sri K. Ramakrishna Bhat.

as a

ase aa near Gd cece ise

3. One Mr. Shivaraarn, an [AS Officer, was the Managing Director ef the Company at the relevant poin = af time, Mr, Shiveraam having ea ee wo a a ob is ~< a 2 Uf en en os 3 teh rer "

a "< lanaging..Di rector; having examined £ the matters relating-to Cor tract NolUME 0952 A Ore Fines to China and release of advancé-to M/s Mallappa Mineral Indu strie Sat nd M/s.Sarar Exports, Goa and the demurrage claim: of "2.66. Crores Oy a foreign buyer, ; Ley edgy bog o raki ew = meds PE ies : pit i having prima facie.noticed lack of integrity and devotion to duty on tne part-of the' peti itoner, pending institution of Sipe tea} reer ' . r - =f A disciplifary oroceedings, in exercise of power conferred Company Gor short 'the

-- Code. oy an order bearing No.MD/28/2011-12, placed 1 O1.07.2011. The said ® a @ ° the petitioner under susp order was questioned in W.P , IAS, nNaving been pos a A Mr. KS. Prabhakar E .

ve 6 SC £ 6 gf 8 TA a -- zo = & a aa . 0) oy wibevel oe aha ey ea sate oy 2 cc ca fiw "ie ie) Ss 2 = = OS c 3 ne ° @ $ § & 8 y :

Ca vt sect Fa 2 vee i 5 he mp Sere Mm o © peers, oo. co pen -- oa od fe a ~ S mS i ot ~ ty a a ns via x © a mar ~ FR pp © | rt an a oo 2 = o2. a _ ee aw mt 'tuawes eS Ge wn, OM a x 7 a p ~ 3 mg Oe Rog. OS Ee RUSE am MG gg Oe a mae pet is) w » & os ae oo Ee OS cc v Oo. Ce oO L BE wg Fn c c sp oO . we wens 7 . - 5 on ae et ~ Se es Ge ot Ee GO . spine stows? ¥ ie ' . Se = i) x '2 c s "3 Oc SS 2 oe -

a cr > ao Go = Be ae | > a ben > : = a. vee wu po" & - te - fl be t Oh ea : : "

Son SS G6 me Ge os : Go SS = t ) spoof [ Lens hos acd Senn a "mg ian en o o re re in aan ~ = a = Al an bed " . nen ol ae re * co "i So a) Te Cp OS CO, " o wet shee! ri a , on bo fy eng mad oe Ww) sme i a es © w er oO uw 3 te mt th a a a he eS im con aa ee v Vd ' em . " Joon © ae m & = aes we NS i Cae ed co ; ohn all sefasel be ad a ae, bent du ral ww cd i a) hal s ac) Fame . Sod Pare = oO gs moo OS EE i ney Pal 7 = = ros oO 'a 5 es a) sek wD. re: - re o ¥ ie ™ O SoS oO ¢ = fF £ @ Go % & a os nS : -- o } = --% iL Soa a ra © & € S$ S = 2 5s eo 8 o " "" C So * "oy .

= w oO a BS 5 x rr a i od a v = nin) ae i) W) oS "ft ie eS to an "cS 5 SSE SS ce Sure SAN RSE CS

5. Statement of objections was filed on behalf of the Company In justification of the charge sheet issued to = ye: ey eye "Aerio esl /.Lakshminarayana, learned. "counsel on un m=, appearing for the petitioner, firstly contended that the entire transaction pertaining to 'fhe payment ofa vance amount to the suppliess i.e , "Ms Mallappa~ Mineral Industries Ltd. and M/s.Saram Exports, Goa, had ratification and order Directors resuesting .wokeyukta to investigate into the "matter and without Anal report being received, an order of "suspension was arbitrariy and whimsically passed against Which faving been challenged in W.P.25589/2011, a charge sheet dated iSsued Peat 'hal om wy inn oo feo Sirah Oy if a mee alee vim = (hr 4 Soe on a

a) ti "i iat;

p = = ony

eT Sel wat"

Managing Director of the Company being primarily and solely responsible in respect of the matters which. have been noticed by the Committee and in respect.of which; -- lokayukta nas been requested [oe investigate. che, petitioner being subordinate to the Managing Director, and hence the Managing Director of the. Company is action as per the findings anc recoraméndation made by the Committees. Learned 'counsel submitted that, if any proceedings are-calléd for, the competent authority to take and prdceed against the Managing oo bo AG ag ; ; . . a a , , proceedings, if any, can be by way OF youl proceedings only... Henee, 'the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner Is wholsy arblilrary and illegal. He placed relance on the "decision in the case of Krishnamurthy C.S. Vs. State of Karndiaka & Others, reported in (9&8s(2) Kar. Lil. iS]. By placing rellance on the decision in the case of Stale of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs, Raj Pai Singh, a cited order, reported in (20/0) 3 SCC er contended =. that the charges against the Managing Director, the' petitioner and other officials being. im. relatien to. same matter, it is not permissible tu deal with the. persons differently, such approacn bel ng disci uminatory. Learned ritting that the impugned charge ari S. oY, Naras ini Aan. | Sau, i " respondent, oy referring te the statement of objections and placing reliance on a decision in the case of Uniornool India. ded Another Vs. Kiuuseity Satvarnaravena, repor ted. in 2007 AIR SCW 607, contended that the writ petition Is 5 -preimatu re and is aiso not maintainable, since mere issuance of a charge-sheet does not give rise to any * cause of action, as it does not amount to an adverse order affecting the rights of the charge sheeted employee. By Inviting the attention of the Ourt | to the Service Rules of ipinary Author org wk i pe fh mm LA ch 'OP as rect ce.

fe, any arbitrariness nor any ilegality in issuing the charge sheet ~ Annexure-A, based on the materials in possession

8. Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, earns HCGP F c Sh ea ree . cba cs Mt Ees appearing for the 1° respondent. contended thet ihe petitioner is an employee of MST, which fras.Conduct & Misciplinary Code, in terms of we Rien the Manag ipa Director B # r oad . se) rity: issued | the. ¢ marge sheet to the petitioner..-Former. Managing "Direétor, the Special Committee iy as made reco mimendations and sanction was matter of Iron Ore Export to China vice Contract No.0952 _deted 12.21.2009 and fix responsiblity for the iapses, will in accordance with jaw since er Oo Sed ia' tu aa > ea os Cr ca a oD a = T ui or necessary action nas been initiated and would be finalised soon.-.He submitted that the charges against the petitioner anc the others in the Management of MSIL being not ?

identical, there cannot be any objection with regard to separate charge sheets being issued to the delinquent officials and that the petitioner cannot claim as aimatier On. right that Joint enquiry' should be held in the matter, HE further submitted Discipurpary pg aE F disciolinary action against the former.Managing Director, sheer to the petitioner, against whem, coe Was made recommendation action apart from tne E 'iminary enquiry report dated contentions and perused the record oA, issued BY Lhe 14 icy e, wh | 3 Go On ng sven Cee va yy en iS) sc " veh \ an ml. _ cn 5S € SC i a EPMO EE Ege ae & nas Conduct ang D i MS st o _ ae i vel Ld aa a a nan om we ~ 'hanun = oo ne

-

A ide Yo aot es an, Dro Hy Leng EY.

16 pA wok ?

hscipline ulhorily, Es a é ' ~nesl "pom ing not co Leg ory of the Company llegation being in respect of the contract dated 12.11.2009, the order for taking disciplinary actiorr.by 'a> ~ commen proceeding has to be made bythe State. Government, which being the highest of, the Authorities, Managing Director has mo Jrelevance since if is the office which matters and not the person, Learned counsel did not dispute the fact that at the relevane point of time, Mr. Shivaraam was th be the Manacing Director of MSIL. The charge-sheet, as at Annexure-A, has mot peerissued py Mr. Shivaraam but by wi =, @.

wy or wat eee

--

[oe eo oo ay fae) oo = ene "t in {j ov not had any role in the matter His Appointing Authority is the Managing Director. in "terms of the provisions of the LS Managing Dir ris the Disciplinary Authority. Managing Director against whom there are no allegations in respect of the matters in question has issued ine charge: sheet, as. ~

13. Tne 'Code ef the Com neta. has empar wered ine Managing Director to issue 'charge sheet.vand order deparimental proceedings against.the ernployées of the see Company. In exercise of the power cont Managing Director issued the impugned: c charge sheet fo ormmendations ee (oy cu 7 ey ee oa = < a2.

om & me ' pep =r (tp h nly a ene sued ob ot Managing Director and not against the pre: sent Weg

-eharge sheet and whd was not a party to any of the . matters ; concerning the Contract No. MF 0952 dated 12.11.2009." Thus, the present Managing Director is not "cisqua alfied from initiation of disciplinary action by issue of "charge sheet against the petitioner. Had the charge-sheet ini question been issued by Mr. Shivaraam, the former seg e, An ae g yoof Mr. Lakshminarayana ~~

14. Shreiritil St Inspector of Police by a Service, oe ig the High Court an the , as Superintendent of Police was incornp the Supreme rejecting the given under A HRS SAU 20 be initiated or conducted by the authorities mentioned in that Article, it has been heid as follows:-

som pet poend & "This article does fol terms require. that, 2ority ernpowered under Ls. In SOSIPY OVS, f Articie 311(4) of the Constitution, it has been held by the Apex Court..that, in the absence of any rule, any superior Ro tan be held to be the Controlling Authorit |. departmental proceeding per se does not visit the officer "concerned with any evil consequences. 49 Authority, who can be heid to be the Controlling Author ity Authorit disputediy, the Managing Director is'the Chief Executive Officer and ail other employees in the Company - enyuiry iS concerned, the. then-Managing Director-and the former Special Officer (Expert), are not tA Ae employees of Any discipli inary acti On against trem, Hence no exception can be takar. fr the « Sempeny not instituting disciplinary action against the YF. "Hower fer, the company nas requested the Government to ta ake appropriate action against the said sand. iranosition. of. penaity are not one and the same. Act of lnostitutins * disciplinary proceeding by issuing charge . "sheet and. conducting enquiry need not be by the ". appointing authority alone. Such an act can he done by a "superior authority / Controlling Authority. However, \ 4 EN SRI a Capt punishment can be imposed only by Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the challenge to the impugned charge sheet is devoid of merit. There cannot be any objections: for ~ issuing separate charge sneets, if [wo or mot are invoived in a case, since the charge "ay voaeaeli one employee to another emsioyee, cependin '9 upon the kind of rcie the employee/s nad played | in the. ma att er.

20. The provision in Rule T2(C}..cf the code makes it clear that, the Author! ty 4 Competent 'Oo pose ine penalty of dicmissalk from "service where iwO or more taken in aC 'ce minon. proceeding'. Indisputedly, in the Zi. In the case of Krishnamurti CS. (supra), the and another Head Constable, by an-order: made -by the"

ae mM charges and imposed pun sament of redu rive years -- which," on sn "appeal _being preferred, was modified to a per reduction by. one inc ££ FR Flows re ee ep Paaice COW Rave eee La ose ges oer ot e petiloner and another Head i provi Pat fade for a joint enquiry? " After examining tre contention along "disciplinary authority" used in Rule 433(5), must be given - tne power to 't. police officers. In my sion has no application for answering e opinion, the said dex the poaingwhich fas-arsen for consideration.

22. Inf case, any other Company employee/s 'sammie matter "by issuing charge sheet/s, there can be consolidation -of proceedings even at a "oo mere issue of a charge sheet, the petitioner nas not .. "suffered any prejudice. It eer im 3 = OO man cup oD one os rp Sol igh we ml ov or wa secur c oe one wu 26 petitioner suffers any prejudice for not holding a 'jaint enquiry' in the matter, the petitioner may get a cause. of action to question tne orcer of punishment.

23. In the case of Raj Pal Singh. (supraj, the -- respondent who was an Assistant Wardner, alana with four had beaten a person which was ve oe = m

-"

"te ff) Lf Ww ey fay a me = oH me ooh a a ra = delinquericy ; being. same and identical and all the employees having beer 4 n. served With a set of charges out of

-same "incident, théere..was no justifiable reasons to pass

- different orders of punishment ana consequently, the order missalwas set aside and stoppage of increments was as was the order in the case of other charged pe . ; bee . & e _ ey fog _ on ty bon Foy Kooy caecde . pent "Court, noticing that the State is met able fo Indicate any &, ue in the delinguency of fhe emplovees, while observing that ib is undoubtedly open to the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and» ance-tkhe lished, to award appropriate punishment e 3 ov if wy a D ne we ¢ oe Séane arid) le nrice! (8) releian fo hee Te EP VT POLS fo deal with the delingueri APOM £33 Pky Gilpe P 'ent punishments would be diseri ino my opinion, Je of the case has no the ratio of the dacision, at application. .Whether-the- Charge against other officiais of cm =) = faa :

sa "named inthe report of the Committee and the pr 'enquiry report.of. Sri K. Ramakrishna Bhat has not been 24, ~iIn the case of Kunisetry Saryanaravane (supra), a.charge memo issued by the Disciplinary Authority, instead of being replied was questioned by the employee, served that, wren the char GOs re LE when the FEVOPIC.

i he Apex Court). ' I, a ia z in appe 28 etic:

oy A i by the High Court and be employer quest = zg H rh H Was allowed € 4 servi a WRICH on py i f case, the c antic st in has been £ who he Comp Su L ¥ Be wer Contract No.MF G952 dated 12.11.2009 against any other an Go) eS en a =e vt 3 ml a et a old wa 2 aoe employee of the Company. Even th were posted by it in the Company. Unless the.Company institutes disciplinary action against its ¢ other emapalas fees, APs any, in respect of the matters velating t othe said contract, there is no scope for orderingjoint enquiry by the t . * . - "ad neel foe 7 nied: 7 i » ntention with regard -te. the. peed. for haiding joint enquiry has no Ment...

26.0 "PE AS: forthe Disciplia ary Authority to first find out the truth of the, él ner rgeS jevelled against the petitioner and proceed". further ip 'the matter. At this stage, it is . jnappropriate to récord-any finding om the correctness or Inthe result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is. dismissed, with no orders as to casts, by making ft clear

-that, the imited for uae construed as opinion of expression on the merit. of the charges levelled against the petitioner.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court