AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—Heard.
The order of the Disciplinary Authority/Superintending Engineer (Electrical), O & M Circle, GESCOM, Raichur Annexure-''D'' dated 12.06.2013 is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order, the petitioner is dismissed from service with immediate effect since he is convicted by the Principal Sessions Court, Raichur in Spl. Case No. 12/2010 dated 22.03.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the ''Act'').
Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer with the respondent/organization. Raichur Lokayukta Police registered Crime No. 15/2009 against the petitioner under Sections 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Act on certain allegations. Petitioner was immediately placed under suspension by the order dated 17.07.2009 and thereafter the respondent entrusted the enquiry to the Upalokayukta under the provisions of the Act against the petitioner. Simultaneously, the crime was investigated and charge sheet was filed by the Lokayukta police and consequently the petitioner was tried for the aforementioned offences and was convicted to undergo imprisonment for 5 years (maximum sentence) apart from other sentences. As against the order of conviction passed by Special Court, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 3542/2013 before this Court and in the said appeal, this Court has suspended the order of sentence on 26.03.2013 as is clear from Annexure-A''. Criminal appeal is yet to be heard and decided. In the meanwhile, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent as per Annexure-''D'' dated 12.06.2013 imposing major penalty of dismissal from service based on the order of conviction.
Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents taking assistance of Regulation 14 of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (CDC & A) Regulations, 1987 (for short the ''Regulations'') submits that no enquiry need to be held against the petitioner in case if the petitioner is convicted on a criminal charge and that it is open for the respondent-authority to pass such orders as the authority deems fit. However, such submission is opposed by Sri Chaitanya Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner by contending that the rules of natural justice mandate that the petitioner should be notified and heard in the matter.
Even according to Regulation 14 of the Regulations, no order regarding penalty may be passed without giving the employee an opportunity to make a representation on the proposed penalty. Therefore, even under Regulation 14 of the Regulations, the petitioner should have been given opportunity to have his say in the matter by making the representation. Even otherwise, in such matters the rules of natural justice require that the petitioner should be notified as to the proposed orders imposing penalty by the respondent-authority.
In addition, Sri Chaitanya Kumar submits that the order of dismissal cannot be passed without holding regular enquiry as required under the rules and since the enquiry is still pending consideration before the Lokayukta, the order of dismissal should not have been made.
Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that Regulation 14 of the Regulations also mandate the respondents to give opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter, by submitting the representation, in my considered opinion, interest of justice will be met if the petitioner is given an opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty. Since the order of imposing the penalty is already passed in the matter on hand, I deem it proper to direct both the parties to treat the impugned order itself as a show cause notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner. The impugned order shall be treated as the show cause notice issued by the respondent proposing to impose penalty of dismissal from service. It is open for the petitioner to file his objection to such deemed show cause notice. After considering the objections/representation of the petitioner, it is open for the respondents to pass such orders as it deems fit, in accordance with law and on merits. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shall file his representation/objection to the show cause notice within six weeks from this day. All contentions and questions raised by the petitioner as well as the respondents in this writ petition are kept open to be urged by them in future either before this Court or before the authority, if they so chose.