: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WP NO.104460/2018, C/W WP NOs.104461/2018 AND
104462/2018 [S-KAT] IN WP No.104460/2018 BETWEEN: VIJAY KUMAR G. SULAKHE S/O GURUNATH RAO, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COMMISSIONER, GADAG-BETGERI, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GADAG. R/O: HUGAR TOOTHA, SIDDHARAMESHWAR NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.
2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY
R
: 2 :
REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-11 AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA. FOR R1, SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE
ORDER IMPUGNED DATED:26.06.2018 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.5018/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" TO THE
WRIT PETITION. (B) ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.5018/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
VIDE ANNEXURE-"B" TO THE WRIT PEITTION.
IN WP No.104461/2018 BETWEEN: VIJAY KUMAR G. SULAKHE S/O GURUNATH RAO, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COMMISSIONER, GADAG-BETGERI, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GADAG. R/O: HUGAR TOOTHA, SIDDHARAMESHWAR NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV. AND SRI. PRITHVI K.S., ADV.)
: 3 :
AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.
2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-11 AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA. FOR R1, SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE
ORDER IMPUGNED DATED:26.06.2018 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.5019/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" TO THE
WRIT PETITION. (B) ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.5019/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
VIDE ANNEXURE-"B" TO THE WRIT PEITTION.
IN WP NO.104462/2018 BETWEEN: V.P. KATWAL S/O PRATAPSINGH KATEWAL AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
: 4 :
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GAJENDRAGAD, RESIDING AT PACHAKSARANAGAR, BEHIND K.V.S.R. COLLEGE, GADAG-582101.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.BASAVARAJ BANNUR, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.
2. HONBLE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-11 AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA. FOR R1, SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE
ORDER IMPUGNED DATED:26.06.2018 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.5020/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" TO THE
WRIT PETITION. (B) ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.5020/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
VIDE ANNEXURE-"B" TO THE WRIT PEITTION.
: 5 :
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed against the order
dated 26.06.2018 made in application Nos. 5018/2018,
5019/2018 and 5020/2018 rejecting the applications of
the petitioners on merits as well as on limitation.
2. The petitioner Sri. Vijay Kumar G. Sulakhe
filed the application in Nos.5018/2018 and 5019/2018
before Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short
“KAT”) challenging the order dated 17.05.2017 as per
Annexure-A15 for entrustment of the case under Rule
14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to
as the KCSs(CCA) Rules, 1957 for short) by the
Government and articles of charge issued dated
14.09.2017 as per Annexure-A16 by the Additional
Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha and also
challenged the entrustment order dated 22.12.2016 as
: 6 :
per Annexure-A20 by the Government and articles of
charge issued by the third respondent, the Additional
Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer dated
07.08.2017 as per Anneuxre-21 in respect of the two
charges.
3. Sri. V.P. Katewal filed an application in
No.5020/2018 challenging the order dated 17.05.2017
as per Annexure-A6 by the State Government for
entrustment of the case to the Lokayuktha and article of
charges dated 14.09.2017 as per Anneuxre-A7 issued
by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka
Lokayuktha.
I. Facts of the case :
4. It is the case of the petitioner Sri. Vijaya
Kumar G. Sulakhe that he was appointed as daily wage
employee in the Gadag Betageri Municipality in the year
1981 and the service came to be regularized on
27.11.1996 to the post of Junior Health Inspector at
: 7 :
Gadag Betageri Municipality w.e.f. 02.11.1991 and the
petitioner Sri. V.P. Katewal was working as Town
Municipal Council, Gajendragad. The things to thus :
One Mr. Huligeppa S. Bandiwaddar filed the complaint
on 13.12.2012 before the Lokayuktha alleging that the
irregularities in the civil work carried out at Town
Panchayath, Naregal. The Lokayuktha conducted the
investigation in pursuance of the said complaint,
prepared a preliminary investigation report. On the
basis of the report submitted by the Lokayuktha, the
State Government exercising the powers under Section
14A of the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 has entrusted the
matter to the Lokayuktha for conducting disciplinary
enquiry proceedings against the petitioners. On the
basis of the said entrustment, the third respondent –
the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry
Officer, Lokayuktha issued articles of charge to both the
petitioners on 14.09.2017. Therefore, the petitioners
have filed the applications stated supra before KAT
: 8 :
challenging both the entrustment order and articles of
charges issued by the respondents.
5. The KAT considering the entire material on
record by the impugned common order dated
26.06.2018 rejected the applications filed by the
petitioners on merits as well as on limitation. Hence,
the present writ petitions are filed.
II. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties :
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties to the lis.
7. Sri. Basavaraj Bannur, the learned counsel
for the petitioners in all the writ petitions vehemently
contended that the impugned order passed by the KAT
rejecting the applications are erroneous, contrary to
law. He would further contended that the specific
grounds urged by the petitioners before KAT are that
the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioners
: 9 :
during discharge of their duties as Municipal servants.
Hence, the State Government has no jurisdiction to hold
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. He
would further contended that Sri. Vijay Kumar V.
Salukhe has become Government servant only on
10.10.2014 by the order dated 10.10.2014 as per
Annexure-A5, prior to that he was not a Government
servant. Therefore, the initiation of departmental
enquiry by the State Government is totally without
jurisdiction.
8. He further contended that the articles of
charge issued by the third respondent - the Additional
Registrar of Enquiries-11 and Enquiry Officer,
Karnataka Lokayuktha dated 14.09.2017 is without
authority of law as he is not a disciplinary authority and
he has not obtained any prior approval from the first
respondent to the articles of charges. Therefore, the
very proceedings of entrustment made by the
Government and issuance of articles of charge by the
: 10 :
Registrar of Enquiries and Enquiry Officer, Lokayuktha
is totally without jurisdiction.
9. He would further contended that the
investigation Officer did not given reasonable
opportunities to the applicants before submitting the
investigation report to the State Government and there
is a delay in issuance of articles of charges and the
charges are not specific. Therefore, he sought to allow
the writ petitions by quashing the impugned order
passed by the KAT.
10. Per contra, Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, the
learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri.
Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, the learned counsel for
the second and third respondent sought to justify the
impugned order passed by the KAT. They would further
contended that the State Government exercising the
powers under provisions of Rule 14A of the KCSs (CCA)
Rules, 1957 has entrusted the matter to the
Upalokayukta. Based on the said entrustment, the
: 11 :
Upalokayuktha has issued articles of charges.
Therefore, the very applications filed against the
entrustment of case to the Additional Registrar of
Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha and issuance of
articles of charges are not maintainable in view of the
dictum of this Court in the case of Mr.Jayaprakash
S/o.Late Ramesh V/s. State of Karnataka, the
Secretary, Panchayath and Rural Development
made in writ petition No.23522/2016 vide order dated
04.10.2016 and also in the case of Dr. Praveen Kumar
S/o. Late. D.M. Balakrishna V/s. The State of
Karnataka, R/p by its Secretary to Horticulture
Department made in W.P. No.101441/2018 vide order
dated 18.06.2018.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents
further contended that the third applicant/petitioner
Sri. V.P. Katewal was a Government servant.
Therefore, he has no grievance against the entrustment
and the articles of charge issued by the respondents
: 12 :
and the counsel for the respondents sought for
dismissal of the writ petitions.
III. Points for determination :
12. In view of the above rival contentions urged
by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that
arise for consideration in the present writ petitions are :
1. Whether the entrustment of the case by
the State Government under Rule 14A of
the KCSs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and the
articles of charge issued by the Additional
Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka
Lokayuktha can be a ground to file
application before the KAT to challenge
the same ?
2. Whether the petitioners have made out
any ground to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the KAT
exercising the powers under Article 226
and 227 of Constitution of India ?
: 13 :
IV. For consideration :
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration
to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties, and perused the entire materials on record
carefully.
14. It is an undisputed fact that on the basis of
the complaint filed by one Mr.Huligeppa Shankar
Bandiwaddar before the Lokayukta alleging
irregularities in the civil works carried out at Town
Panchayath, Naregal, the Lokayuktha conducted the
investigation in respect of the alleged civil works and
prepared a preliminary investigation report and
submitted to the Government on 04.06.2015, alleging
irregularities committed by the present petitioners and
others and spent unnecessary Rs.95.24 lakhs towards
expenditure. Based on the said report, the State
Government by the order dated 17.05.2017 exercising
the powers under the provisions of Rule 14A of
KCSs(CCA) Rules entrusted the matter to the Upa-
: 14 :
Lokayuktha. Based on the said entrustment, the
Additional Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka
Lokayuktha issued articles of charges.
15. The main grievance of the petitioners is that
some of the petitioners are not Government employees
as on the date of the report submitted by the Upa-
Lokayuktha and the Government has no jurisdiction to
entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha for enquiry.
It is only disciplinary authority has to proceed with the
disciplinary enquiry, and the articles of charges issued
by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, is totally
without jurisdiction.
16. For better understanding, it is relevant to
know the definition of “competent authority”, “public
servant” defined under the provisions of Karnataka
Lokayuktha Act, 1984. Section 2(4) of the Karnataka
Lokayuktha Act, 1984 reads as under:
“2. Definitions –
: 15 :
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) xxx
(4) “Competent authority” in relation to a
public servant means. –
(a) in the case of Chief Minister or a
member of the State Legislature, the Governor acting in his discretion;
(b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary,
the Chief Minister;
(c) in the case of a Government servant
other than a Secretary, the government of Karnataka;
(d) in the case of any other public
servant, such authority as may be prescribed;”
17. The public servant defined under the
provisions of Section 2 (12) of the Karnataka
Lokayuktha Act reads as under :
xxxxx
“(12) “public servant” means a person who is or was at any time,-
(a) xxx
: 16 :
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) xxx
(e) xxx
(f) xxx
(g) A person in the service or pay of,
(i) a local authority in the State
of Karnataka;
(ii) a statutory body or a
corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act,
owned or controlled by the State Government and any other board or corporation as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein, by
notification, from time to time, specify;
(iii) a company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government, or any company
which is a subsidiary of such company’
(iv) a society registered or
deemed to have been
: 17 :
registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is subject to the control of
the State Government and which is notified in this behalf in the official Gazette’
(v) a co-operative society’
(vi) a university;”
18. A combined reading of the said provisions
makes it very clear that in the case of any other public
servant, such authority as may be prescribed or a
person in the service or of in a local authority in the
State of Karnataka. The provisions of the Lokayuktha
Act has to be applied because of the applicability of the
rules of Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of
Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 to the services of
the petitioners. Even under the said rules, it was made
clear that the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 do apply in regard to
the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners.
The applicability of the said rules 1957 is distinctly
: 18 :
stated in Clause (1) of Rule 11 of the Karnataka
Municipalities Rules, 2010, which reads as under :
11. Application of certain other rules – Without prejudice to these rules, the provisions of .-
(1) The Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 shall apply subject to modifications specified in Schedule III.
19. Of course, under the said clause (1) of Rule
11, the Rules of 1957 apply to the employees like the
petitioners subject to the modifications specified in
Schedule III to the Rules of 2010. But, such
modifications in Schedule III have no bearing on the
subject matter of these petitions. Under the said
Schedule-III, only the authorities, who are competent to
impose punishment, as also the Appellate Authorities
have been specified. Such provisions do not, in any
manner, nullify or override the effect of the Act of 1984
and the Rules made thereunder. In view of the above
said provisions of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, KCSs
(CCA) Rules, 1957 and Karnataka Municipalities
: 19 :
(Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010,
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the State Government is not a competent authority
to entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha and the
Upa-Lokayuktha has no jurisdiction to issue articles of
charges, cannot be accepted and required to be rejected.
20. It is also not in dispute that the Upa-
Lokayuktha had given opportunity to the petitioners
before submitting a report to the State Government
under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Karnataka
Lokayuktha Act and after giving sufficient opportunity
to the petitioners to submit their objections, and
thereafter submitted the report. Admittedly, the present
petitioners have participated in the enquiry proceedings
and when the matter was posted for cross-examination
of witnesses by the delinquent officials, at that stage,
the petitioners sought for adjournment for cross-
examination of the witness and the matter was
adjourned and thereafter, they have filed applications
: 20 :
before the KAT challenging the very entrustment by the
Government and issuance of articles of charge. Once
the petitioners participated in the enquiry proceedings
without raising the locus of the State or the Upa-
Lokayukha to proceed against the petitioners, it is not
open for them to challenge the same after participation
and the applications filed before the KAT by the
petitioners is an after thought, liable to be rejected in
view of the Law of estoppel under the provisions of 115
of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
“S.115. When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while
considering the provisions of Section 115 of the
Evidence Act in the case of Ashok Kumar and another
V/s. State of Bihar and others reported in (2017) 4
SCC 357 at para Nos.13, 14, 17 and 18 held as under:
: 21 :
“13. The law on the subject has been
crystallized in several decisions of this
Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v.
Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the
principle that when a candidate appears at
an examination without objection and is
subsequently found to be no successful, a
challenge to the process is precluded. The
question of entertaining a petition
challenging an examination would not arise
where a candidate has appeared and
participate. He or she cannot subsequently
turn around and contend that the process
was unfair or that there was a lacuna
therein, merely because the result is not
palatable. In Union of India v. S Vinodh
Kumar, this Court held that (SCC p.107,
para 18)
“18. It is also well settled that
those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein
were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission.)”
: 22 :
14. The same view was reiterated in
Amlan Jyoti Borooah wherein it was held to
be well settled that the candidates who have
taken part in a selection process knowing
fully well the procedure laid down therein
are not entitled to question it upon being
declared to be unsuccessful.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil
Joshi, candidates who were competing for
the post of Physiotherapist in the State of
Uttarakhand participated in a written
examination held in pursuance of an
advertisement. This Court held that if hey
had cleared he test, the respondents would
not be raised any objection to the selection
process or to the methodology adopted.
Having taken a chance of selection, it was
held that the respondents were disentitled to
seek relief under Article 226 and would be
deemed to have waived their right to
challenge the advertisement or the procedure
of selection. This Court held that : (SCC
p.318, para 18)
“18. it is settled law that a
person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot,
: 23 :
thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.”
18. In Chandigarh Admn. V. Jasmine
Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes
a calculated risk or chance by subjecting
himself or herself to the selecton process
cannot turn around and complain that the
process of selection was unfair after knowing
of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep
Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this
Court held that : (SCC p.500, para 17)
“17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more
point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result.
However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates
cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the
: 24 :
interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.”
22. It is an admitted fact that on the complaint
made by one Mr.Huligeppa Shankar Bandiwaddar, the
Upa-Lokayuktha conducted the enquiry and submitted
the report that there is a prima-facie case against the
petitioners and based on the entrustment, articles of
charges issued having participated before the Enquiry
Officer. It is not open for them to challenge before the
KAT as the same was pre-mature. The co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in an identical circumstances
considering the power of the State Government to
entrust the matter to the Upa-Lokayuktha and issuance
of article of charges in the case of Gopal Hanamanth
Kase V/s. The State of Karnataka, Department of
Urban Development reported in 2018 (3) KCCR 2646
(DB), dismissed the petitions holding that Government
can entrust the matter on the basis of the report
: 25 :
submitted by the Lokayuktha. The said judgment
passed by this Court has reached finality.
23. It is well settled law that the charge memo
does not disclose any misconduct for which charge have
been framed, the Tribunal or the Court could not justify
at this stage to go into whether charges are true or
could be go into, for it would be a matter on the
production of evidence for consideration at the enquiry
by the Enquiry Officer. At this stage, framing of charge,
statement of facts and the charge sheet supplied are
required to be looked into by the Court or Tribunal is
the nature of the charge, charges and Court, Tribunal
should not interfere against the charge memo issued.
It is for the delinquent officials to file objections and
contest in the enquiry proceedings.
24. It is also a well settled that ordinarily
application before the Tribunal or writ does not lie
against the charge sheet or show cause notice for the
reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action.
: 26 :
It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the
right of any party unless the same has been issued by a
person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. The
charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is
only when a final order imposing the punishment or
otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may
have a grievance and cause of action. Therefore, the
charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary
proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the
court.
25. Our view is fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence
and others V/s. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported
in (2012) 11 SCC 565 at para Nos.8, 10 and 12 reads
as under:
“8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-
sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent
employee has any grievance in respect of the
charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a
representation and wait for the decision of the
: 27 :
disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-
sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the
ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary
proceedings or delay in concluding the
proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the
charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the
charge and all relevant factors involved in the case
weighing all the facts both for and against the
delinquent employee and must reach the
conclusion which is just and proper in the
circumstance. (Vide State of M.P. v. Bani Singh,
State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, Registrar,
Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey, Union
of India v. Ashok Kacker, Prohibition & Excise
Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, State of A.P. v. N.
Radhakishan, Food Corporation of India v. V.P.
Bhatia, Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan, M.V.
Bijlani v. Union of India, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI and
Govt. of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy.)
10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie
against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for
the reason that it does not give rise to any cause
of action. It does not amount to an adverse order
which affects the right of any party unless the
same has been issued by a person having no
jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies
: 28 :
when some right of a party is infringed. In fact,
charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party.
It is only when a final order imposing the
punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a
party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause
of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause
notice in disciplinary proceedings should not
ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of
U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing
Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v.
Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam
Ghouse and union of India v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana.)
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be
summarized to the effect that the charge-sheet
cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge
as it does not adversely affect the rights of the
delinquent unless it is established that the same
has been issued by an authority not competent to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the
disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be
quashed at an initial stage as it would be a
premature stage to deal with the issues.
Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the
grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a
belated stage or could not b concluded in a
: 29 :
reasonable period unless the delay creates
prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of
alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken
into consideration while quashing the proceedings.
V. Conclusion :
26. For the reasons stated above, the first point
raised has to be answered in the negative holding that
the entrustment of the case by the State Government
under Rule 14A of KCSRs (CCA) Rules, 1957 and
articles of charge issued by the Additional Registrar of
Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayuktha is not a ground to file
the applications before the KAT to challenge the same.
27. The Tribunal considering the entire material
on record in a proper prospective rightly dismissed the
applications. The same is in accordance with law and
the 2nd point raised has to be answered in the negative
holding that the petitioners have not made out any
ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by
the KAT in exercising the powers under provisions of
: 30 :
Articles of 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
28. However, it is made clear that any
observations made by this Court, while deciding the writ
petitions, shall not influence the inquiry
officer/disciplinary authority and to take decision
independently /strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE MNS/