Karnataka High Court
Sri. Y N Krishna Murthy vs Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation ... on 20 July, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.5559/2020 (S-RES)
Between:
Sri Y.N. Krishna Murthy,
S/o Sri Y.C. Nanjundaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at No.74, 4th Main Road,
H.V.R. layout, Prashanth Nagar
Bangalore - 560 079. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Y.N. Krishna Murthy, Party-in-person)
And:
Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Ltd.,
(A Govt. of Karnataka Undertaking)
III & VI Floor, Public Utility Building,
M.G.Road, Bangalore - 560 001
Represented by Managing Director. ... Respondent
(By Sri.T.P. Muthanna, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the
entire records of the case, quash the proceedings
enquiry dtd.04.02.2020 of the enquiry officer appointed
by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.53029/2018 by its
order dtd.17.12.2019 leaving it open to the disciplinary
2
authority to consider whether fresh article of charge
have to be framed by him particularizing the charges by
and strictly in accordance with the Rule 26 of the KSIC
1980 and take further action for initiating disciplinary
proceeding against the do and to proceed to hold an
enquiry against him afresh the certified copy of which is
produced as Annexure-Q and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
hearing, this day through video conference, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
In the instant petition petitioner has assailed the enquiry officer report/order dated 4.2.2020 by which the enquiring authority has held that articles of charges served on the petitioner are not in accordance with Rule 26 of the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited, Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 (for short Appeal Rules, 1980) and it is in violation of the aforesaid Rules. It was further ordered that it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to consider whether fresh articles of charge have to be framed by him particularizing the charges by and strictly in accordance with the appeal Rules, 1980 and to take 3 further action for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and to proceed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner afresh (Annexure-Q).
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Sales officer on probation on 21.8.1987. Before declaration of probation as satisfactory, he was discharged from service on 31.3.1994. It was subject matter of W.P. No.9752/1994 and it was dismissed on 19.7.1994. Petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.1991/1994. In the Division Bench there was a difference of opinion. Thus, matter was referred to third Judge. On 25.9.1996, the 3rd Judge agreed with the version of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, consequently order of discharge dated 31.3.1994 was set aside so also order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.7.1994. Consequently, petitioner was reinstated on 6.11.1996. The respondents issued show cause notice along with the article of charges for initiation of enquiry. Petitioner 4 submitted his reply on 18.12.1996 against show cause notice dated 8.11.1996, wherein petitioner had denied the alleged charges. The respondents terminated the services of the petitioner on 23.8.1997 and it was subject matter of W.P. No.8147/1998 and it was decided in favour of the petitioner to the extent of setting aside the order of termination while imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-.
3. When things stood thus, on 14.2.2005 show cause notice along with the charge sheet were issued. The petitioner disputed the alleged charges and preferred Writ Petition No.9159/2005 which was allowed while quashing the charge sheet and imposed cost of Rs.10,000/-.
4. Respondents preferred Writ Appeal No.3137/2005 which was allowed on 10.2.2006 and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice/charge sheet and so also directed the 5 respondent to conduct enquiry in accordance with law. Arising out of the charge sheet issued on 14.2.2005, once again petitioner was terminated from service on 8.3.2006. Petitioner questioned the order of termination dated 8.3.2006 in W.P. No.1449/2008 and it was allowed in favour of the petitioner while setting aside the order of termination. However, matter was remitted back to the respondent to conduct enquiry afresh. For intervening period from the date of termination till the date of allowing the W.P. No.1449/2008 dated 3.2.2012 consequential benefits have not been ordered. Thus, petitioner preferred writ appeal No.681/2012 and it was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 16.07.2012.
5. Pursuant to the directions of this Court to hold enquiry in W.P. No.1449/2008, wherein respondents were held enquiry and once again terminated the services of the petitioner on 11.7.2012. The said termination order was subject matter in W.P. 6 No.21936/2013 and it was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 20.9.2017 while imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- on the respondents for victimization of the petitioner. Respondents preferred writ appeal No.6359/2017 which came to be allowed in part and in remitting to hold enquiry with a time frame.
6. Respondents filed Special Leave Petition No.25550/2018 against the judgment and order of this Court dated 27.04.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No.6359/2017 and SLP was dismissed on 28.09.2018.
7. During pendency of the S.L.P., petitioner was once again terminated on 6.8.2018. In a departmental appeal, it was confirmed on 22.10.2018. Petitioner preferred writ petition No.53029/2018, wherein he had filed I.A. seeking direction to the respondent to produce original documents in respect of the charge sheet dated 14.2.2005 whereas on 23.10.2019, learned Single Judge proceeded to pass 7 order that "All pending application shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the petitioner".
8. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2019 petitioner preferred Writ appeal No.3878/2019 and it was disposed of on 22.1.2020. Further, on 17.12.2019, learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.53029/2018, while appointing Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, Retired District Judge as Inquiry Officer with the consent of the parties.
9. In terms of the directions, enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted report on 4.2.2020 wherein enquiry officer held that initiation of enquiry is not in accordance with Rule 26 of Appeal Rules, 1980 while leaving open to the disciplinary authority to consider whether afresh articles of charges have to be framed by him particularizing charges by and strictly in accordance with Rules 26 of Appeal Rules, 1980 and to take further action for initiation of disciplinary 8 proceedings against the petitioner and to proceed to hold enquiry afresh. Thus, petitioner feeling aggrieved by the report/order of the enquiring authority dated 4.2.2020 presented this petition.
10. The petitioner-in-person vehemently contended that respondents have issued show-cause notice cum charge sheet on 14.02.2005 which is highly belated and after lapse of 9 years from the date of dismissal of Writ Appeal of the respondents. It was further contended that such issuance of show cause notice and charge sheet dated 14.02.2005 is contrary to Rule 26 of Appeal Rules, 1980 which relates to imposing of major penalty under the Appeal Rules, 1980. It was further contended that official respondents are behind the back of the petitioner in continuation of disciplinary proceedings for one or the other reason with reference to the very same alleged charges in the absence of concrete material evidence. The reason for such action of the 9 respondent is that the then Chairman and Managing Director who is stated to have committed some alleged irregularities for which compliant was registered before the Lokayuktha for its investigation. The respondents are of the view that petitioner is behind such complaint against the then Chairman and Managing Director of Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited (Hereinafter referred to as 'KSIC' for short). Further, it is contended that the present litigation is of the 6th round with reference to the charge sheet dated 14.02.2005. Petitioner was discharged and terminated from service on more than one occasion. The order of discharge as well as termination orders were the subject matter of judicial scrutiny where petitioner succeeded throughout. Ultimately, on technical ground matter was remanded while appointing Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, retired District Judge as Enquiring Officer who has held preliminary enquiry and found that Articles of Charges leveled against the petitioner is 10 contrary to Rule 26 of Rules, 1980 to the extent of vagueness of the charges and in not serving the Statement of allegations, list of documents and list of witnesses. Such, default on the part of the respondent was admitted by Presenting Officer Sri P M Chandrashekaraiah, Former Deputy Manager. In this backdrop, the Enquiring Officer drew proceedings holding that the Articles of charges are vague, in not serving statement of allegations, list of documents and list of witnesses and contrary to Rule 26 of Rules 1980. Further, the Enquiring Authority observed that 'leaving it open to the Disciplinary Authority to consider whether Articles of Charge have to be framed by him particularising the charges by and strictly in accordance with Rule 26 of the KSIC Rules, 1980 and to take further action for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the D.O and to proceed to hold an enquiry against him afresh, the entire file is returned to the Disciplinary Authority of the KSIC Ltd.' Such order 11 cannot be passed by the Enquiring Officer. He has not been authorized or empowered under Rules, 1980. His role is limited to the extent of holding of enquiry. In the absence of any provision of law authorizing the Enquiry Officer to remand the matter to the disciplinary authorities to initiate a fresh enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has committed glaring error. Such, order is without jurisdiction and without authority of law.
11. Having regard to the dates and events, the respondents are behind the petitioner from 31.03.1994
- the date on which the petitioner was discharged from service and till date the respondents are harassing the petitioner. The action of the respondent amounts to malafide. In other words, respondents somehow intended to penalize the petitioner. Even perusal of Articles of Charges, it is such vague that one cannot understand. Articles of Charges are not accompanied with statement of imputation. Thus, issuance of 12 Articles of charges are vitiated by malafides since, respondent has not applied its mind in not adhering to Rule 26 of Rules, 1980. In other words, what steps are required to be taken in initiation of enquiry has not been examined by the respondent/disciplinary authority while initiating disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, enquiring authority in the impugned order has come to the conclusion that initiation of enquiry like framing of Articles of Charges was not in accordance with Rule 26 of Rules, 1980. In fact, he has taken note of various decisions of the Apex Court and High Court. However, enquiry officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering a fresh enquiry by the disciplinary authority.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the Enquiring Officer dated 04.02.2020. The Enquiring Officer held that the charges leveled against 13 the petitioner is not in consonance with Rule 26 of Rules, 1980. Further, liberty has been given to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate a fresh enquiry in terms of Rule 26 of Rules, 1980. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the Enquiring Officer and it is for the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision either to initiate a fresh enquiry or not? pursuant to the Enquiring Officer's order dated 04.02.2020. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to set-aside the later portion of the Enquiry Officer's Order.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. The core issues involved in the present petition are as follows:
(i) Whether delay in concluding the disciplinary proceeding vitiates entire proceedings or not?
(ii) Whether Enquiry Officer could recommend for initiation of a fresh enquiry or not?
(iii) Having regard to the materials, dates and events, whether a fresh enquiry is warranted or not?
(iv) What relief petitioner is entitled to?14
15. The gist of the events are as follows:
DATE EVENT 31.03.1994 Petitioner was discharged from service 25.09.1996 Discharge order was set-aside by this Court 06.11.1996 Petitioner was reinstated 23.08.1997 Petitioner was terminated and it was set-
aside by this Court in W.P.8147/1998 14.02.2005 Show-cause notice was issued 12.07.2005 In W.P.No.9159/2005, show-cause notice was set-aside 10.02.2006 Respondent's W.A.No.3137/2005 was allowed 08.03.2006 Petitioner's service was terminated 03.02.2012 Set-aside of termination order dated 08.03.2006Writ Petition No.1449/2008 was allowed 16.07.2012 Writ Appeal No.681/12 was allowed in respect of consequential benefits on account of setting-aside of termination order dated 08.03.2006 11.07.2012 Terminated from service 20.09.2017 Writ Petition 21936/13 was allowed 15 27.04.2018 Writ Appeal 6359/17 allowed in part while directing the respondents to hold enquiry Respondents filed SLP 28.09.2018 SLP was dismissed 06.08.2018 Terminated from service 04.02.2020 Writ Petition No.53029/18 filed 23.10.2019 IAs filed in W.P.No.53029/18 or not entertained 22.01.2020 W.A.3878/19 against learned Single Judge's order dated 23.10.2019 in W.P.53029/18 was disposed of 17.12.19 W.P.53029/18 was disposed of while appointing Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat as Enquiring Officer to hold enquiry 04.02.2020 Enquiry Officer held that initiation of enquiry under Rule 26 of Rules 1980 is not in order. Further, liberty has been given to the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh enquiry in terms of Rule 26 of Rules, 1980
16. It is a protracted disciplinary proceedings which is in vogue against the petitioner i.e., from the date of initiation of enquiry on 14.02.2005 followed by termination on 08.03.2006, 11.07.2012, 06.08.2018. Both initiation of 16 enquiry as well as order of termination was subject matter of litigation before this Court and Apex Court viz., W.P.9519/2009, W.A.3137/05, W.P.1449/08, W.A.681/12, W.P.21936/13, W.A.6359/17, W.P.53029/18 and W.A.3878/19 and in SLP(c) No.25550/2018 which were in favour of the petitioner. Despite judicial pronouncements in the aforesaid cases, respondents have not taken note of legal infirmity in initiation of enquiry under Rule 26 of Rules, 1980. The respondents - disciplinary authority should have apprised this Court in withdrawing the initiation of enquiry dated 14.02.2005 which is not in consonance with Rule 26 of Rules, 1980 and should have sought for initiation of a fresh enquiry at the earliest. The same has not been resorted to. Thus from 10.02.2006 i.e., the date on which Writ Appeal No.3137/2005 was allowed, till this day the respondent - disciplinary authority/appellate authority proceeded to pass one or the other termination order and its confirmation. Apex Court in the case of P.V.MAHADEVAN vs M.D.TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD reported in AIR 2006 17 SC 207 quashed the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay which supports the petitioner's contention - delay in concluding proceedings. It is to be noted in the present case, petitioner was discharged from service on 31.03.1994 on certain allegations. Such discharge order was without holding enquiry and it was set-aside by this Court. With reference to the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the year 1994 was the subject matter of initiation of enquiry on 14.02.2005. In between the aforesaid dates, petitioner was terminated from service on 23.08.1997. Having regard to the dates and events from the year 1994 up to 04.02.2020, the date of discharge and enquiry officer's report, there is enormous delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner has faced mental and financial agony from 1994 till date at the hands of the respondents in the absence of documentary evidence and even to this day, respondent is not in a position to point out dates and events of irregularities alleged to have committed. Accordingly, 18 entire proceedings are vitiated on account of delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings. QUESTION No.2:
17. Rule 26 of Rules 1980 reads as under: Procedure for imposing major penalties.
1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Clauses (e), (f),
(g), & (h) of Rule 24 shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this rule.
2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee, it may itself enquire into (or appoint any one (hereinafter called the inquiring authority) to inquire into truth therof.
3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations against the employee. The charges, together with a statement of the allegations, on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the employee who shall be required to 19 submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not less than 7 days), a written statement whether he admits or denie any of or all the Articles of Charge.
Explanation.- It will not be necessary to show the documents listed with the charge-sheet or any other documents to the employee at this stage.
4) On receipt of the written statement of the employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified an enquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself or by any one appointed as inquiring authority under sub-clause (2).
Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the charges admitted by the employee in his written statement. The disciplinary authority shall, how-ever, record its findings on each such charge.
5) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry, it may, by an order appoint any one to be known as the "Presenting Officer"
to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.
6) The employee may take the assistance of any other employee of 20 the Corporation but may not engage a legal Practitioner for the purpose, provided, that he may so engage a Legal Practitioner, if the disciplinary authority has also engaged a Legal Practitioner for conducting the case.
7) On the date fixed by the inquiring authority, the employee shall appeal before the Inquiring Authority at the time, place and date specified in the notice. The inquiring authority shall ask the employee whether he please guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the employee concerned thereon. The Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the employee concerned pleads guilty.
8) If the employee does not plead guilty the inquiring Authority shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an order that the employee may for purpose of preparing his defence: and
i) inspect the documents listed With the chargesheet:
ii) submit a list of additional documents and witnesses that he wants to examine;21
iii) be supplied with the copies of the statements of witness if any, listed in the charge-sheet.
Note :- Relevancy of the additional documents and the witnesses referred to in sub-
clause 8 (ii) above will have to be given by the employee concerned and the documents and the witness shall be summoned it the inquiring authority is satisfied about their relevance to the charges under inquiry.
9) The inquiring authority shall ask the authority in whose custody or possession of the documents, are kept for the production of the documents on such date as may be specified.
10) The authority in whose custody or possession the requisitioned documents are, shall arrange to produce the same before the inquiring authority on the date, place and time specified in the requisition notice. Provided that the authority having the custody of possession of the requisitioned documents may claim privilege if the production of such documents will be against the public interest or the interest of the Corporation. In that event, it shall inform the inquiring authority accordingly.
22
11) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witness shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be crossed examined by or on behalf of the employee. The presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witness on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on a new matter, without the leave of the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
12) Before the close of the prosecution case, the inquiring authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the charge-sheet or may itself call for new evidence or recall or re-examine any witness. In such case the employee shall be given opportunity to inspect the documentary evidence before it is taken on record or to cross-examine a witness, who has been so summoned.
13) When the case for disciplinary authority is closed, the employee may be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer, if the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded an the employees shall be 23 required to sign the record. In either case a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting officer, if any, appointed.
14) The evidence on behalf of the employee shall then be produced.
The employee may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the employee shall than be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-
examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provision applicable to the witness for the disciplinary authority.
15) The Inquiring Authority, may after the employee closes his case, and shall, if the employee has not examined him-self, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
16) After the completion of the production of the evidence, the employee and the Presenting Officer may file written briefs of their respective cases within 15 days of the date of completion of the production of evidence.
17) If the employee does not submit the written statement of defence referred tot in sub-rule(3) on or before the date specified for the purpose or does 24 not appear in person, or through the assisting officer or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of these rules, the inquiring authority may hold the enquiry ex-parte.
18) Whenever any inquiring authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another inquiring authority which has, and which exercises, such jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by its predecessor, partly recorded by its predecessor or and partly recorded by itself.
Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witness whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall, examine, cross-examine and re-
examine any such witnesses and hereinbefore provided.
19) i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, report shall be prepared and it shall contain_
a) a gist of the articles of charge and the statement of the 25 imputations of misconduct or misbehavior.
b) a gist of the defence of the employee in respect of each article of charge;
c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge;
d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons thereof.
Explanation- If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiring establish any article of charge different from the original articles of charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge:
Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the employee has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge.
ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the disciplinary authority, shall forward to the disciplinary authority the records of inquiry which shall include:-
a) the report of the inquiry prepared by it under sub-clause (i) above;
b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the employee referred to in sub-rule (13)' 26
c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry;
d) written briefs referred to in sub-rule (16), if any; and
e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry.
Show-cause notice cum charge-sheet is dated 14.02.2005. The list of charges leveled against the petitioner reads as follows:
1. Lacks capability to hold the post of Assistant Sales Officer, underutilization of the services of Sales Staff on account of his inefficiency, resulting in causing indirect loss to the Corporation.
2. Showing dishonesty or fraud in connection with the business or property of the Corporation.
3. Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation.
4. Willful insubordination or disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors.
5. Negligence and lack of interest in the performance of his duties.27
6. Committing an act subversive of discipline or of good behavior.
7. Committing an act amounting to abatement of an act which amounts to misconduct.
8. Making representations directly to various authorities thereby divulging directly or indirectly official document or wrong information to the authorities detrimental to the interests and reputation of the Corporation under the guise of ventilating his grievances.
9. Committing an act resulting in loss of confidence and act in manner detrimental to the interests of the Corporation resulting in maligning the confidence and integrity reposed on him by the Corporation.
10. Criticising the officers of the Corporation, making allegations against the officers of the Corporation in disregard of the reputation of the Corporation and its officers.
11. Poor performance in discharge of his duties throughout.
12. Indulging in cheating the customers and not mending his ways in spite of issue of warnings, thereby proving himself an incorrigible character.
13. Height of inefficiency and incorrigible act exhibited throughout, thereby putting negative contribution.28
14. Exhibiting hatredness towards the officers of the company.
18. The aforesaid Rule 26 of Rules, 1980 read with the charges leveled against the petitioner it is crystal clear that show cause notice cum charge sheet is not in accordance with Rule 26 of Rules, 1980. In other words, the charges are very vague and not supported by statement of allegations/imputation, list of documents and witnesses. Thus, rightly the Enquiring Authority held that the very initiation of enquiry like issuance of show cause notice cum charges are not in consonance with Rule 26 read with various judicial pronouncements which are quoted in the order/report dated 04.02.2010. The Enquiring Officer should have restricted his order only to the extent that show cause notice cum Articles of Charge dated 14.05.2005 is not in accordance with Rule 26 of Rules, 1980. He has not been delegated power to recommend anything beyond giving a report pursuant to the show 29 cause notice cum charge dated 14.02.2005. So also, Rules, 1980 do not provide for Enquiring Officer to recommend what action is required to be taken by the disciplinary authority. In other words, source of power to the Enquiring Officer to recommend or to make observation of 'leaving it open to the disciplinary authority to consider whether fresh article of charge have to be framed by him particularizing the charges by and strictly in accordance with the Rule 26 of the KSIC 1980 and take further action for initiating disciplinary proceeding against the do and to proceed to hold an enquiry against him afresh' is without authority of law.
Such recommendation or observation reported by the Enquiry Officer is without jurisdiction. Thus, he has exceeded his jurisdiction. Accordingly, the aforesaid portion of the order/report dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure
- Q) is liable to be set-aside.
30QUESTION No.3:
19. Perusal of the dates and events from 31.03.1994 - the date of discharge, 4 termination orders dated 23.08.1997, 08.03.2006, 11.07.2012, 06.08.2018 read with show cause notice dated 14.02.2005, it is not appropriate to give liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh enquiry in the year 2020 with reference to the alleged allegation relates back to the year 1994. No-
doubt certain allegations leveled in the charge that, "Showing dishonesty or fraud in connection with the business or property of the Corporation and indulging in cheating the customers and not mending his ways inspite of issue of warnings, thereby proving himself a incorrigible corrector". The aforesaid allegations are serious in nature at the same time, respondent/disciplinary authority have failed to apprise this Court by producing any material information so as to substantiate the aforesaid charges with reference to 31 dates and events since definite and distinct Articles of Charges were required to be drawn at the time of initiation of enquiry. Even during the pendency of the present petition, the respondents have failed to produce any material information that the petitioner had committed the alleged charges with reference to dates and events so as to remand the matter for initiation of inquiry afresh and to conclude within a stipulated time. In the absence of statement of imputation, the charges leveled against the petitioner are very vague. It is imperative that specific charges are framed in the clearest terms and with full particularity. The charges are not to be vague and should state in definite terms the allegations on which they are based and the grounds which have led to the authority to take action. The language used should be clear, free from ambiguity, whereas Articles of Charges in the present case are not supported by statement of imputation. Since, employee is to be informed not only of the charges against him 32 but also of the evidence on which those charges are sought to be established so that he can forward his defence. The charge sheet usually consists of forwarding letter/show-cause notice and 4 annexures viz., Articles of Charges, Statement of imputation/misconduct or misbehavior on which the charge is based; list of documents and list of witnesses. Supreme Court in the case of SBI vs NARENDRA reported in C.A.No.263/13 dated 14.01.2013 wherein it was held that enquiry is vitiated on the ground that failure to mention the names of witnesses and documents in support of charges.
20 . Having regard to the Articles of Charges which are vague in nature, the following expression used in the charge sheet have been held to be vague as lacking precision -
(i) he used to accept bribes (Niranjan Prasad v. State, AIR 1960 All, 323); 33
(ii) 'other allegations'; 'his associates'(Raghubans Ahir v. State, AIR 1957 Patna 100);
(iii) 'with ulterior motive'(State v. Saligram, AIR 1960 All. 543);
(iv) 'failure to show improvement in working inspite of repeated bad confidential reports'(Ramanand case, supra) (No instance of lack of improvement given which he could explain);
(v) violated departmental rules and contravened official procedures (S.Sahapathy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1985 Lab. IC 521) (Without specifying which particular rule or procedure was violated);
(vi) used car of 'an assessee' (J.S. Arora v. Union of India, 1984 Lab. IC 46) (Without specifying the assessee and giving other relevant particulars).
In the present case perusal of charges are similar to the aforesaid principles. Matter could have been referred back to the Disciplinary authority to initiate a fresh enquiry had the disciplinary authority furnished material information relating to statement of imputation, during the pendency of the present petition. 34 Hence, it is not appropriate to initiate a fresh enquiry in the present matter.
QUESTION No.4:
21. Petitioner was discharged from service and reinstated into service by virtue of judicial pronouncement and further subjected to disciplinary enquiry, during the period from 1994 to 2020. Therefore, he is entitled to consequential service and monetary benefits.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) In view of the aforesaid reasons and legal
position, portion of the order viz., 'leaving it open to the Disciplinary Authority to consider whether Articles of Charge have to be framed by him particularizing the charges by and strictly in accordance with Rule 26 of the KSIC Rules, 35 1980 and to take further action for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the D.O and to proceed to hold an enquiry against him afresh the entire file is returned to the Disciplinary Authority of the KSIC Ltd.' Vide Annexure - Q dated 04.02.2020 is set-aside. Remaining portion of the order/report dated 04.02.2020 is affirmed.
(iii) Respondent-disciplinary authority is hereby restrained from taking further action, pursuant to show-cause notice cum charge sheet dated 14.02.2005 read with Inquiry Officer Order/Report dated 04.02.2020.
(iv) Respondents are hereby directed to set-right the petitioner's service conditions which are due to him from time to time on par with his immediate junior in the service. Thereafter monetary benefits which are due to him shall 36 be calculated and released along with 6% interest.
(v) The above exercise shall be completed by the disciplinary authority/competent authority within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which petitioner is entitled to litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to whatever monetary benefits are due to the petitioner by virtue of service condition.
Sd/-
JUDGE BS/brn