Back
1994 Supreme(Kar) 228
Karnataka High Court
C.Y.PARTHASARATHY - Appellant
Versus
SYNDICATE OF THE MYSORE UNIVERSITY, MYSORE - Respondent
Decided On : 08-25-94
W.A. : 1644 of 1994
K.R.D.KARANTH, V.C.BRAHMAIAYAPPA
Acquiescence in a joint enquiry precludes a delinquent employee from challenging the jurisdiction of the authority after the verdict goes against them.
Headnote:
ACQUIESCENCE - Employee Participation in Domestic Enquiry - Mysore University Employees (CC and A) Statutes, 1983 - Statute 13 - The appellant, an Executive Engineer, participated in a joint enquiry against him and two others, challenging the legality and competence of the joint enquiry only after the verdict went against him. The court held that the appellant had acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Syndicate to order and the competence of the inquiry officer to hold a joint enquiry against him and the two others facing the charges with him. The court declined to interfere with the actions of subordinate authorities due to the appellant's acquiescence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Executive Engineer at Mysore University, faced a joint enquiry into allegations of misappropriation and shortage of cement and steel. He challenged the legality and competence of the joint enquiry only after the verdict went against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Syndicate to order and the competence of the inquiry officer to hold a joint enquiry against him and the two others facing the charges with him. The court declined to interfere with the actions of subordinate authorities due to the appellant's acquiescence.
Issues: The court considered the true and correct interpretation of Statute 13 of the University Statutes and whether the appellant had acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Syndicate to order a joint enquiry and the competence of the inquiry officer to conduct the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's acquiescence in the joint enquiry precluded him from challenging the jurisdiction of the Syndicate and the inquiry officer after the verdict went against him. The court also noted the absence of any prejudice to the appellant due to the joint enquiry.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned and without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) CAN a delinquent employee facing a domestic enquiry participate in any such enquiry, without demur and thereby take a chance of getting a favourable verdict, but finding that the verdict has gone against him, turn round and question the competence of the authority initiating the enquiry, is the short but crucial question that falls for consideration in this appeal. A few facts relevant to the case need to be stated before proceeding any further: the appellant is an Executive Engineer in the employment of the Mysore University. On the basis of a specific complaint made by one Dr. K. Mahadev, a member of the University Senate and the Syndicate, a preliminary enquiry into the allegations of misappropriation and shortage of cement and steel from the engineering Division of the University was made. The enquiry showed that the allegations were prima facie correct based on which the Syndicate directed the framing of charges against the appellant and two others, one of who was a Junior Engineer and the 2nd a storekeeper. All told seven distinct articles of charges were framed against the appellant out of which only four, were pressed in the course of the enquiry. Charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 pressed against the appellant were in the following terms: "firstly, that you, Sri C. Y. Parthasarathy, Executive engineer, University Engineering Division, Mysore while supervising the construction of six lecturers' quarters at manasagangotri, Mysore have colluded with the Junior engineer Sri K. R. Rajanna, and the Storekeeper Sri P. Kapanaiah, to get six lecturers' quarters constructed in manasagangotri, Mysore during 1989 to 1991 with only 2000 bags of cement issued from that stores of the university Engineering Division against the actual requirement of 3030 bags of cement and, further, you have admitted bills submitted by Sri P. Srikantaiah the concerned contractor towards 1000 bags of cement said to have been purchased by him in open market, even though adequate cement was available in the stores on the dates of alleged purchases, and thus, you have cheated the university, and thereby committed a grave misconduct punishable under Statutes 9 and 10 of the Mysore university Employees (CC and A) Statutes, 1983. Secondly, that you, Sri C. Y. Parthasarathy, Executive engineer, have colluded with Sri P. Kapanaiah, storekeeper, to misappropriate about 15. 50 MT of steel of different diameters, worth about Rs. 2,09,638-64 p. , and thereby committed a grave misconduct punishable under statutes 9 and 10 of the Mysore University Employees (CC and A) Statutes, 1983. Thirdly, that you Sri C. Y. Parthasarathy, Executive engineer, being responsible to supervise the proper maintenance, acquisition and issue of articles from the stores, failed in your duties, resulting in the shortage of about 15. 50 MT of steel of different diameters and is thereby responsible for the loss caused to the University to a tune of Rs. 2,09,638-64 p. , due to your gross negligence, and thus committed a grave misconduct which is punishable under Statutes 9 and 10 of the Mysore university Employees (CC and A) Statutes, 1983. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx seventhly, that, you, Sri C. Y. Parthasarathy, while so working as Executive Engineer, placed an order on 19-6-1992 for supply of 4,000 bags of ACC cement from acc Company and paid the full amount, and also received 4,000 bags of ACC Cement, but caused to enter in the stock Register only 3,600 bags as having been received from the ACC Company, and thereby misappropriated 400 bags of cement and caused loss to the extent of about Rs. 45,000/- to the University and thus committed a grave misconduct punishable under Statutes 9 and 10 of the mysore University Employees (CC and A) Statutes, 1983.
( 2 ) THE appellant and the other two delinquents were called upon to submit their explanations to the charges in response to which, the appellant submitted a one line reply, denying the charges and putting the respondent Univers
