Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J.
Y.N. Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation, Represented by the Managing Director, Bangalore & Another – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21936 of 2013 (S-DIS)
Decided On : 20-09-2017
For the Petitioner: Y.N. Krishna Murthy
For the Respondent:H.M. Muralidhar, Advocate.
Charges in a departmental enquiry must be clear, precise, and unequivocal, and a vague charge-sheet violates the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Termination - Victimisation - Departmental Enquiry - [Termination, Victimisation, Departmental Enquiry] - [KSIC Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1987, Rule 32] - The court examined the legality of the termination order and the appellate order, highlighting the repeated termination and reinstatement of the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner were found to be vague and lacking in detail, violating the principles of natural justice. The court set aside the termination and appellate orders, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back-wages and awarded a cost of Rs. 25,000 for victimization.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Mr. Y. N. Krishna Murthy, challenged the legality of the removal order and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, citing repeated termination and reinstatement, vague charges, and victimization by the respondents. The petitioner raised contentions regarding mala fide intentions, vague charges, double punishment, and colorable exercise of power. The respondents argued inefficiency, grave misconduct, and non-cooperation during the departmental enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the charges against the petitioner to be vague and lacking in detail, violating the principles of natural justice. It noted the repeated termination and reinstatement of the petitioner, indicating victimization by the respondents. The court set aside the termination and appellate orders, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back-wages and awarded a cost of Rs. 25,000 for victimization.
Issues: The issues involved repeated termination and reinstatement, vague charges, victimization, and violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The charges against the petitioner were found to be vague and lacking in detail, violating the principles of natural justice. The court set aside the termination and appellate orders, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back-wages and awarded a cost of Rs. 25,000 for victimization.
Final Decision: The termination order and the appellate order were set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with 50% back-wages and awarded a cost of Rs. 25,000 for victimization.
1. Mr. Y. N. Krishna Murthy, the petitioner-in-person, has challenged the legality of the removal order dated 11.07.2012, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 20.03.2013, whereby the Appellate Authority has confirmed the removal order, and dismissed his departmental appeal.
2. This case has an extremely involved and checkered history. But in order to understand the legal issues which need to be examined by this Court, it is imperative that the historical background should be narrated.
3. On 11.09.1987, Mr. Krishnamurthy was appointed as an Assistant Sales Officer with the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation, Bengaluru, the respondent No.1. Although he was required to work as a Probationer for a period of one year, but due to certain alleged irregularities committed by him, due to lack of satisfactory performance, his probationary period was extended till 31.03.1994. By order dated 31.03.1994, he was discharged from the service. Since he was aggrieved by the said discharge order, he filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.9752/1994, before this Court. However, by order dated 19.07.1994, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. Subsequently, challenging the order dated 19.07.1994, he filed an intra-court appeal, namely W.A.No.1991/1994, before this court. Since the learned Division Bench was divided in its opinion, the appeal was referred to a third Hon'ble Judge of this Court. By judgment dated 25.09.1996, the Hon'ble Judge set aside the discharge order dated 31.03.1994, and directed that the petitioner should be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Since the learned third Judge had agreed with the opinion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, in terms of the of the opinion of the learned Third Judge, the appeal was allowed by Judgment dated 01.10.1996. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated on 06.11.1996.
4. However, immediately two days after the petitioner was reinstated, on 08.11.1996, he was served with a show-cause notice. After completing the departmental enquiry, by order dated 23.08.1997, the petitioner was terminated from his service. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the termination order, 23.08.1997, he filed a departmental appeal before the Board of Directors. However, by order dated 03.01.1998, his appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner filed a second writ petition, namely W.P.No.8147/1998 before this court. By order dated 06.10.2001, this court allowed the said writ petition, and directed the petitioner's reinstatement with full back wages, and continuity of service, and with consequential benefits. This Court also awarded a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner was reinstated in the service.
5. For four long years, the respondents sat quietly. But on 14.02.2005, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice. The show-cause notice related to the same set of allegations as were leveled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice dated 08.11.1996. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said show-cause notice, he filed his third writ petition, namely W.P.No.9159/2005 before this Court. By order dated 12.07.2005, this court allowed the said writ petition, quashed the show-cause notice dated 14.02.2005, and awarded a cost of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the petitioner.
6. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2005, it filed a writ appeal, namely W.A.No.3137/2005 before the learned Division Bench. By judgment dated 10.02.2006, the appeal was allowed, and the order dated 12.07.2005 was set aside.
7. With the show-cause notice restored by the learned Division Bench, the departmental enquiry commenced again. After the completion of enquiry, by order dated 08.03.2006, the petitioner's services were again terminated. Since the petitioner was again aggrieved by the said termination order, he again filed a departmental appeal. However, by endorsement dated 15.04.2006, the Appellate Authority claimed that the appeal was not main
