Virupakshi vs Karnataka Lokayukta and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—1. Sri S.S. Kumman, learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri A. Syed Habeeb, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondent No. 3.

The petitioner has called into question the first respondent''s enquiry report, dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure-B), the second respondent''s recommendations contained in the communication, dated 13.10.2015 (Annexure-C) and the show cause notice, dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure-D).

Sri R.S. Sidhapurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is acquitted by the criminal court. On the same set of facts, the respondents have initiated the departmental enquiry. He submits that based on the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct, the respondent No. 2 has recommended that the petitioner be awarded the penalty of removal from Government service. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 has no power to make such recommendation. According to him, the recommendations are without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. He submits that the respondent No. 3 has issued show cause notice and that the petitioner has already submitted his reply thereto. The third respondent is not considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, so submits the learned counsel. He submits that the petitioner has the apprehension that the third respondent may pass the punitive order without considering the petitioner''s explanation.

Sri S.S. Kumman, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that this petition is premature. The Government may or may not act on the recommendations of the respondent No. 2. If, as and when the Government acts on the recommendations of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner gets firm cause of action and that too to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.

Sri A. Syed Habeeb, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Government is seized of the matter. He also submits that this petition is premature, as no orders are passed by the Government on the show cause notice and the reply received thereto.

It is trite that standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than the standard of proof required in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The acquitting of the petitioner by the criminal court does not automatically entitle him to be exonerated from the charge in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

It is profitable to refer to what the Apex Court had to say in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh reported in , (2012) 3 SCC 64. Paragraph 68 of the said decision is extracted herein below:

"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."

We may also usefully refer to the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India reported in , (1998) 1 SCC 226. Paragraph 55 of the said decision is extracted herein below:

"55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law."

The petitioner is facing the grave charge of misconduct of demanding Rs. 500/- for issuing the agricultural certificate in the name of one Ashok Chand Rathod''s father.

That apart, what are challenged are the enquiry report, the recommendations thereon and the show cause notice. The issuance of none of these three give any firm cause of action to the petitioner. In this regard, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in , AIR 2007 SC 906, is of utmost significance. Head note (A) of the said reported decision is extracted herein below:

"Ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal."

It is also worthwhile to notice in this context what the Apex Court has to say in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in , AIR 2012 SC 2250. Paragraph-9 of the said decision is extracted herein below:

"9. 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, 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."

In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court to which the elaborate references are made hereinabove, we decline to interfere in the matter. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to take such defences as are permissible in law in response to the impugned show case notice. If, as and when the respondent No. 3 passes any order, it shall also be open to the petitioner to seek the redressal of his grievances in appropriate proceedings.

This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.