Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 182
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
Nanjunda & Others
Versus
Chamarajendra Zoolological Garden by its Executive Director Ittigude & Another
Writ Petition No.10644 of 2006 (S-RES) C/w. W.P. No.10577 of 2006 (S-DE)
Date of Judgment : 13-03-2009
For the Petitioners:M.C. Pyati, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 M.P. Associates, Advocate.
Headnote:KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEALS) RULES, 1993 - Domestic enquiry: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Request of a delinquent / Employee seeking assistance of an advocate to cross-examine the management witnesses - Rejection of - Held, Examination of witness by adverse party is called the cross examination. It is the most effective of all means of extracting the truth and exposing falsehood. It is not an empty formality, but the valuable right to substantiate the defence. It is true that if the allegations are simple, the disciplinary authority need not permit the petitioners to appoint a lawyer to defend their case, which is not so in the present case. It is their specific case that they are illiterate persons and that they are not in a position to cross-examine the expert witnesses of the management. The charges are as serious as to entail dismissal from service. In the circumstances, denial of assistance of a lawyer amount to denial of a real and reasonable opportunity of defence. Hence, Petitioners are permitted to engage the services of an Advocate to represent them in the disciplinary enquiry.
LABOUR & SERVICES - Disciplinary Proceedings: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Simultaneous criminal proceedings - Whether departmental proceedings can be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case ? - Held, The object of holding a departmental enquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of any misconduct or delinquency. The purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is purity and efficiency of the public service. The dominant purpose of a criminal proceeding is to achieve the protection of the public. Therefore, the fields of operation of the two proceedings are quite different and independent. The Criminal Court requires high standard of proof for convicting an accused. In disciplinary proceedings, strict rules of evidence and high standard of proof are not required for finding a person guilty. It is enough if there is no Constitutional, statutory or legal bar to conduct a departmental enquiry pending disposal of a criminal case. It is only when the accused is acquitted honourably and completely exonerated with the charges, it would not be expedient to continue a departmental enquiry on the very same charges or grounds on evidence. Therefore, the departmental proceedings cannot be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case.
(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, paying to quash the notice dated 06.01.2006 and 26.06.2006 vide Ann.M, N1 and N2 and etc.)
The petitioners-1 to 3 in W.P. No.10644/2006 and the petitioners in W.P. No.10577/2006 are common. Though the reliefs sought in the writ petitions are different, the basic facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are also common. Therefore, both the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners have been working as attenders at Sri. Chamarajendra Zoological Garden, Mysore, the 1st respondent in W.P. No. 10644/2006. An order dated 21.11.2005 was passed by the disciplinary authority keeping them under suspension on the ground that they are responsible for the death of certain zoo animals. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued proposing to hold the disciplinary enquiry against them. Criminal prosecution was launched against them on the basis of the same set of facts. The petitioners denied the charge by filing their reply. Being not satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority constituted a One Man Enquiry Committee headed by a retired judicial officer, who is a practicing Advocate at Bangalore. The enquiry officer issued notices to the petitioners as per Annexures-M (dated 06.01.2006), N, N1 and N2 (all dated 26.06.2006) directing them to appear before him in person on 02.07.2006. The petitioners filed an application before the disciplinary authority dated 15.07.2006 seeking his permission to appoint an advocate to appear for their defence. In the said application, it is contended that they are illiterate persons and not exposed to the outer world. They do not know anything about law and procedure of disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, they want the assistance of an advocate to defend their case. The said application was rejected by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 20.07.2006. Therefore, petitioners have filed W.P.No.10644/2006 for quashing the notices issued by the enquiry officer dated 26.6.2006 and in W.P. No.10577/2006, they have questioned the validity of the order of the disciplinary authority dated 20.07.2006.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. In W.P. No.10644/2009, learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notices proposing to hold the disciplinary enquiry and has simultaneously launched criminal prosecution on the basis of the same set of facts. Since the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based on similar set of facts, it is necessary to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (AIR 1999 SC 1416). In W.P. No.10577/2006, learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are illiterate persons, and not exposed to outer world and they do not know anything about the law and procedures of disciplinary enquiry. The Management in order to prove the charges has cited 14 witnesses. Six of them are veterinary scientists form the institute of animal Health and Veterinary Hospital, Mysore. One is a Scientific Officer (Department of Toxicology of FISL, Bangalore). It is impossible for an ordinary defence assistant to defend the case by cross examining these expert witnesses. There is no bar in Karnataka Zoo Authority Service Rules, 1993 (for short ‘Rules’) for appointment of a legal practitioner. Therefore, the disciplinary authority was not right in rejecting the application of the petitioners on the ground that there is no provision for appointment of a legal practitioner in the Rules.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no bar for conducting a disciplinary enquiry even if criminal prosecution is launched on the same set of facts. Secon
