TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is working as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. He was served with a charge-sheet alleging misconduct against him. On receipt of the explanation from the delinquent, the Corporation decided to conduct an enquiry in the matter and appointed one N. C lakshminarasimhaiah, a retired District and Sessions Judge, as the Enquiry Officer. In the course of the enquiry, th management examined one M. Dasappa, while the petitioner examined his wife Smt. K. R. Vijayalakshmi besides his own self upon appreciation of the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding against the petitioner. It was held that the petitioner was in possession of Rs. 145/- contrary to circular instructions issued vide No. KST/co/10084, dated 9-3-1995 based on the enquiry report the respondents have yet to take a final decision in the matter. The petitioner has at this stage come up with the present petition challenging the enquiry repor and asking for a writ of certiorari quashing the same.

( 2 ) SRI V. Gopala Gowda, learned Counsel for petitioner, raiseca two-fold comment in support of the writ petition. Firstly, he urged that the appointment of Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah was contrary to the provisions of Regulation 23 of the Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct am discipline) Regulations, 1971. It was contended that the appointment of an outsider to the Corporation as an Enquiry officer was not within the contemplation of Regulation 23 of the (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations. Alternatively he urged that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer was perverse and therefore liable to be quashed. I find no substance in either of the two submissions made by Sri V. Gopala Gowda. In so far as the first limb of the petitioner's case is concerned, Regulation 23 does not either expressly or by necessary implication forbid the appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer. Regulation 23 in so far as the same is relevant for the instant case, reads thus:"23 (2 ). Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Corporation servant it may itself inquire into or appoint under this regulation an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. 23 (5 ). (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-regulation (2), an inquiring Authority for the purpose and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Corporation servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge I after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in sub-regulations (24) to (26 ). (b) xxx xxx (c) Where the Disciplinary Authority itself inquires into any articles of charge or appoints an Inquiring Authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Corporation servant, to be known as the "presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of articles of charge". A plain reading of the regulation does not support the argument canvassed by Sri V. Gopala Gowda that a person outside the corporation hierarchy could not be appointed as an Enquiry Officer. All that it requires is that the Disciplinary Authority may either conduct the enquiry himself or appoint an Enquiry Officer to examine the allegations made against the employee. In the absence of any specific bar to the appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer, it is difficult to appreciate as to how could such an appointment be held to be bad.

( 3 ) RELIANCE by Sri V. Gopala Gowda upon the decision of alearned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Hotel Kanishka v delhi Administration, is misplaced and does not lend any support to the petitioner's c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document