Karnataka High Court
S Murali vs Karnataka State Ware Housing ... on 31 August, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
W.P.No.36183/2003
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI
W.P.No.36183/2003(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI S.MURALI
S/O S.N.SUNDERRAJ IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.252, 67TH CORSS
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560010 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PUTTIGE R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1) KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION
NO.43, PRIME ROSE ROAD
BANGALORE 560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2) MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION, NO.43
PRIME ROSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DT.31.7.2003 IN SAM/
KARAHUNI/IA.VI/4348/2003-04 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
W.P.No.36183/2003
2
W.P. COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the order of punishment dated 31.07.2003 produced as Annexure-D, passed by the second respondent herein.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Accountant cum Audit Officer. The petitioner and one Venkatesh Boyi were in charge of the godown taken on hire at Raichur in the year 1995. In April 1995, there was accidental fire which resulted the burning of the cotton bales stored in the said godown valuing several lakhs of rupees. The report regarding the said incident was placed before the Board by the Managing Director. The Board by its resolution dated 02.03.1996 resolved to hold a joint enquiry against the Manager Venkatesh Boyi and others by appointing a retired Judge. However, another resolution came to be passed on 12.02.2001 interalia resolving to hold a joint enquiry against Bhoyi, Murali (petitioner) and two others namely V.Nagaraj and V.Srinivas. The W.P.No.36183/2003 3 second respondent- the Managing Director by his order dated 07.08.2002 appointed a retired IAS officer as an enquiry officer. The charge-sheet was issued and separate enquiry was held against Boyi and the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Managing Director on 17.09.2002. The Board passed a resolution on 30.06.2003 inter alia dismissing Boyi and directing recovery of money and for petitioner he was demoted. A separate communication were issued to Boyi and to the petitioner. The order of punishment passed against the petitioner is called in question in this writ petition.
3. As against the order of dismissal, Venkatesh Boyi filed a writ petition in W.P.No.35103/2004. This Court by its order dated 27-02-2008 allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of punishment by directing the respondents to reinstate said Venkatesh Boyi with 50% back wages. The said order was called in question by the respondents in Writ Appeal W.P.No.36183/2003 4 No.571/2008 and the said writ appeal was also came be dismissed.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the Board had resolved to hold a joint enquiry against the four persons by appointing a Retired Judge as an Enquiry Officer, neither any retired Judge was appointed as an Enquiry Officer nor the joint any enquiry was conducted against the persons referred to in the resolution. The separate enquiry conducted only against the petitioner and Boyi. Having regard to the procedure adopted by the second respondent, which is contrary to the Board resolution, this Court has held that the enquiry initiated by the second respondent is without authority of law and consequently, set-aside the order of punishment imposed on Boyi which is confirmed by the Division Bench.
5. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case also. There is no dispute W.P.No.36183/2003 5 that the Board has passed a resolution to hold a joint enquiry by appointing a retired Judge and admittedly, this Court has taken note of the same and has held that the second respondent- the Managing Director could not have initiated enquiry by appointing a retired IAS officer and that too he could not have initiated separate enquiry against the petitioner and Boyi. Hence, if the enquiry held against Boyi is held to be bad, the same also applies to the petitioner's case.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that no doubt, this Court has held that the Board had resolved to hold joint enquiry. However, the charge levelled against Venkatesh Boyi and the petitioner were different, as such, separate enquiry became necessary and accordingly, separate enquiry was initiated. Therefore, not holding a joint enquiry against them cannot be a ground to set-aside the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner. He also further submits that when the Board has W.P.No.36183/2003 6 passed an order of punishment, it shows that it has rectified the decision taken by the second respondent. Hence, he submits that there is no ground to interfere with the order of punishment.
7. Though the contention was raised by the learned Counsel for the Corporation with regard to separate articles of charges and separate enquiry, however, it is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Learned Single Judge at para 7 of the order dated 27.02.2008, passed in W.P.No.35103/2004, in the matter of Venkatesha Boyi v. State of Karnataka and others, which reads as under:
"It is not in dispute that the Board of respondent Corporation is the appointing authority. The Board in its resolution dated 12.02.2001 resolved to initiate a joint enquiry against the petitioner and three others by name Sri.V.R.Nagaraj, Sri.V.Srinivas and Sri.V.Murali. In this resolution the Board further resolved to appoint a retired Judge as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter. Ignoring this resolution of the Board, the Managing W.P.No.36183/2003 7 Director of the respondent Corporation passed an order on 07.03.2002 appointing the third respondent, a retired IAS Officer as the Enquiry Officer and issued separate articles of charges to the petitioner. This action on the part of the Managing Director is contrary to the Board resolution dated 12.02.2001. Further it is not in dispute that the Managing Director of the Corporation is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. The action of the Managing Director to hold separate enquiry only against the petitioner and by appointing a retired IAS Officer to enquire into the matter is not ratified by the Board of the respondent Corporation. Though the Board has ratified the order of penalty it has not ratified the initiation of enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and the appointment of retired IAS Officer as Enquiry Officer. Therefore the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner is not only contrary to the Board resolution dated 12.02.2001 and the same is without authority of law and as such the enquiry proceedings are vitiated."
This Court has held that, the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein was contrary to W.P.No.36183/2003 8 the Board resolution dated 12.02.2001 and as such, the enquiry was passed without authority of law and is void. It has also referred to the Board resolution with regard to joint enquiry at para-8 and has observed that there is no explanation by the Corporation as to why the joint enquiry was not held. In the absence of any explanation, the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner alone were vitiated. If the enquiry proceedings initiated against Venkatesh Boyi is held to be void on the ground of not holding a joint enquiry, the said observation also applies to the petitioner's case. Apart from this, the Division Bench of this Court in para-8 of its order dated 20-07-2012 passed in Writ Appeal No.571/2008 has also reiterated the reasons given by the learned single Judge inter alia stating that the Board had resolved to hold joint enquiry against all the persons who were involved but unfortunately, no such joint enquiry is conducted. On the contrary, the enquiry is held against each employee separately contrary to the resolution of the Board. W.P.No.36183/2003 9
8. From the observations and conclusions reached by the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench as stated above, I am of the view that there is no distinction between the case of the petitioner and Venkatesh Boyi. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the similar benefit.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits.
Sd/-
JUDGE YN.