Karnataka High Court
P Y Upadhya vs The Joint Director on 21 February, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
D HARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEB
RUARY, 2012
:BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PAT
IL
W.P.No. 18477 of 2004(S-DIS)
Between:
Sri.P.Y.Upadhya,
Sb Yuvaraj,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at Wagheshnagar,
5th cross,
Near Veerabhadreshwara
Temple, Ranebennur,
Haven District.
Petitioner
(By Sri. V.G.Bhat & Sri.S.M.Padaga
nur, Advocates)
And:
1. The Joint Director,
Karnataka Handloom Developmen
t
Corporation Limited,
Head Office,
N.K.Complex,
Keshavapura,
Hubli,
Pin code: 580023.
2. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Handloom Developmen
t
Corporation Limited,
No.24/i,
5th main
Road,
Jayamahal,
Bangalore-560046.
Respondents
(By Sri. R.P.Chatni & Sri.B.C,Prabhakar, Advocate
s)
This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to
quash the
impugned order dated 13/09/2000 passed
by the R-2
vide Annexure-K and also to quash the imp
ugned order
dated 7.8.2003 vide Annexure-M.
This W.P coming on for Hearing this
day, the
Court made the following
ORDER:
The petitioner in this petition has sought to quash the impugned order dated 13/09/2000 vide Annexure-K and the order dated 7.8.2003 vide Annexure-M passed by the 2nd respond ent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was an employee of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited, which is a Government of Karnataka undertaking and working as Junior Assistant at Laxmeshwar Sub-Divisi on, Office of the Karnataka Handloom Development Cor poration Limited.
A charge-sheet dated 27.5.1999 was issued to him, alleging certain charges with regard to mis appropriation of certain articles and fund. Vide Annexure-A. Since the pe titioner was innocent and no t committed any offence, he gave his reply as to how each one of the charges lev elled against him are false and without any substance vide Annexure-B. Unfortunately, without co nsidering the said reply an d without affording reasona ble opportunity to him, fir st respondent by order dated 20.7.1999 appointed an Inquiry Officer and also Pr esenting Officer and directed the Inquiry Officer to subm it report within a period of three months. The Inq uiry Officer, after conduc ting enquiry has submitted his report stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, 2nd respondent ha s issued a second show caus e notice to the petitioner as to why further action shou ld not be taken against him on 24.6.2000. To that, petit ioner has given his reply on 17.7.2000 vide Annexure-
J. But without considerin g 1 4 the reply given by the petitio ner, he was imposed a penalty of compulsory retire ment by order dated 13.9.2000 vide AnnexureK. Against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal.
The Appellate Authority, without considering the grounds urged by the petitioner, has rejected the sai d appeal by order dated 7.8.2003 vide Annexure-M. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2nd res pondent, petitioner has presented this petition.
3. I have heard the learned cou nsel for the petitioner and learned cou nsel for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the pet itioner, at the outset submitted that the orders pa ssed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexures- K and M are liable to be set aside, on the ground that, both the orders are passed without conducted property enquiry and without complying the principles of natural justice, as 2nd respondent has failed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses nam ely, Sri. S.U.Karegowda, 7' --...-
5Accounts Officer, Gadag and Sri. C.M. Chandrappa, P.C.C.C. Administrator. Further he vehemently submitted that, the order impug ned vide Annexure-M is liable to be set aside on the gro und that, the competent authority to pass orders is the Board and not the 2nd respondent- Managing Director as per Class-8 of the Karnataka Handloom Developm ent Corporation Staff Regulations, 1979. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent are liable to be set aside.
5. After hearing the learned cou nsel for petitioner and after careful perusal of Impugned Annexure-M passed by the 2nd respondent it emerges that, in fact, the said order has been passed by the 2nd respondent- Managing Director on the basis of the proceedings of the 164th Board Meeting held on 26.6.2003 as could be seen from Reference No.8 of the said order. Therefore, I am of the considered view tha t, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that second 4 6 respondent is not a compete nt authority to pass the said order cannot be a ground for quashing the same. However, it appears that, inadve rtently, petitioner has not challenged the proceedin gs of the 164th Board Meeting held on 26.6.20 03 along with the order impugned vide Annexure-M passed by the by the 2nd respondent- Managing Director. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petition er stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the correctness of the proceedin gs of the 164th Board Meeting held on 26.6.2003 , if so advised or if need arises before the appropriate Legal Forum.
With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd! tsn*