Back
1995 Supreme(Kar) 196
Karnataka High Court
IRAPPA - Appellant
Versus
MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD - Respondent
Decided On : 04-06-95
W.P. : 8664 of 1987
S.N.MURTHY, V.GOPALA GOWDA
The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in departmental enquiries, emphasizing the right to a fair opportunity for the accused employee.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Departmental Enquiry - Fair Opportunity - Enquiry Report - Quashing of Orders
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a resident engineer, was suspended and subjected to a departmental enquiry for alleged negligence resulting in a roof collapse. The inquiry officer's report found the petitioner guilty, leading to an order reducing his position and imposing a fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry violated principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not provided with relevant documents and was denied the opportunity to summon witnesses. The inquiry report lacked reasoning and was deemed unsatisfactory.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, denial of fair opportunity, lack of reasoning in the inquiry report
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-production of relevant documents and denial of the opportunity to summon witnesses amounted to a denial of fair opportunity, vitiating the enquiry and the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and allowed for a proper enquiry de novo, emphasizing the seriousness of the incident and the need for a fair process.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as a resident engineer with the respondent-corporation and was put in charge of its davanagere unit. It appears that the respondent took-up the work of construction of k. s. r. t. c. bus stand at davanagere and while the same was in progress, a portion of its roof collapsed on the 12th april, 1985. The petitioner being in charge of the work, was placed under suspension and an enquiry started against him. It was alleged that the collapse had occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner in the discharge of his official duties resulting in loss to the corporation to the extent of Rs. 20,000/ -.
( 2 ) IN response to the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner he submitted his reply in which he denied that he was negligent or had committed any ACT subversive of discipline.
( 3 ) THE explanation submitted by the petitioner not having been found satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him for which purpose one Mr. S. k. patil of M/s. R and m. associates, bangalore, was appointed as the inquiry officer.
( 4 ) THE inquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. After giving the petitioner a show-cause notice, he was finally served with an Order dated 23rd may, 1986, impugned in the present petition, by which he was reduced to the minimum of time scale held by him and was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on account of the loss suffered by the corporation. It is against this Order of punishment that the present petition has been filed by him in this court.
( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
( 6 ) MR. V. Gopalagowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the enquiry conducted by Mr. Patil was in total violation of the principles of natural justice. He urged that in the course of the enquiry the inquiry officer neither furnished nor arranged to supply the documents demanded by the petitioner nor were the witnesses cited by him summoned for examination. He was therefore not given a fair and reasonable opportunity of defending himself which vitiates the enquiry as also the Order passed on the basis thereof.
( 7 ) MR. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent-corporation, however, tried to support the report of the inquiry officer and also the impugned order. He submitted that the petitioner had not been prejudiced on account of the alleged non supply of the documents demanded by him.
( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that in a departmental enquiry like the one conducted in the instant case, the inquiry officer discharges a quasi-judicial function. It is also not disputed that the report which the inquiry officer prepares and submits to the management finally becomes the basis for the imposition of any punishment upon the employee. The fact that such an enquiry is bound to adversely affect the civil rights of an employee is also not in dispute nor was it urged by the learned counsel for respondents that the principles of natural Justice were not attracted to an enquiry like the one conducted against the petitioner. It is in the above background that the validity of the enquiry held against the petitioner will have to be judged in the instant case.
( 9 ) ONE of the requirements of a fair and proper enquiry is that the person against whom the same is being conducted must be informed of the material that is sought to be used against him in the course of the enquiry. Disclosure of the material is important because unless the same is done, he will have no opportunity to meet the same. Yet another requirement of a fair and proper enquiry is that the employee concerned must have a fair and reasonable opportunity of producing his defence whether by way of oral or documentary evidence. There is no gainsaid that any enquiry which denies to the delinquent employee such an opportunity would fall short of the legal requirements of audi alterant pa
