Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Sujatha, Ravi V. Hosmani, JJ.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
C. Raghunathan - Respondent
W.A. No. 3236/2018 (S-DIS)
Decided On : 20-01-2022
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29276/2014. The Court held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and the order of punishment imposed on him was not sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of appellant no. 1, was issued with four Articles of charges, alleging misconduct and possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the respondent was dismissed from service. He challenged the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority, which rejected his appeal. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the departmental enquiry was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the management had not examined any of the witnesses named in the list of witnesses annexed to the Articles of charges, and that the only witness examined was the Investigating Officer in the criminal prosecution, who had merely produced investigation records and his statement in writing. The Court also held that the management had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the charges against the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the order of punishment imposed on the respondent was sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the departmental enquiry was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, as the management had not examined any of the witnesses named in the list of witnesses annexed to the Articles of charges, and the only witness examined was the Investigating Officer in the criminal prosecution, who had merely produced investigation records and his statement in writing. 2. The Court held that the order of punishment imposed on the respondent was not sustainable, as the management had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the charges against him.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29276/2014.
JUDGMENT
Ravi V. Hosmani, J. - Challenging the judgment dated 03.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.29276/2014, this appeal is filed by respondents in the writ petition.
2. The appellants herein were respondents in writ petition, while respondent herein was the petitioner. They will hereinafter be referred to as per their respective ranks in this appeal.
3. Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned counsel for appellants submitted that respondent - C. Raghunathan joined services of appellant no. 1 as Assistant Engineer (Aero), Grade - I in Design Complex, on 29.01.1991. On, 21.06.2006, he was issued with Articles of charge (Annexure - N) imputing that with a view to derive pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means abusing his position as a public servant, respondent had demanded through Sri. M.P. Shivshankar (his accomplice) from Sri. Vemula Madhukar, a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as illegal gratification for arranging appointment of Sri. Vemula Madhukar as Executive Trainee (Technical) and in pursuance thereof had demanded and accepted Rs. 40,000/- as advance payment of illegal gratification and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage for himself.
4. And further that, Sri. Vemula Madhukar was declared passed and selected in the test for selection of Executive Trainees held on 12.10.2003 and 16.10.2003. Though, Sri. M. Masilamani signed letter of offer of appointment, it was handed over to respondent. Sri. M.P. Shivshankar thereafter met Sri. Vemula Madhukar and demanded Rs. 4.00 lakhs as illegal gratification.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent was issued with three other Articles of charges, earlier. The first one was issued on 23.11.2004 (Annexure - C) alleging obtaining illegal gratification in connivance with Sri. Masilamani, received original letters of appointment of Sri. V. Senthil Kumar and Sri. Janaki Rami Reddy for the post of Executive Trainee (Technical) with ulterior motive of demanding bribe. The second Articles of charge (Annexure - R3) was issued on 25.02.2006 alleging acquisition of assets and pecuniary resources valued at Rs. 12,80,491/- which were disproportionate his known and lawful sources of income. The third Articles of charge dated 21.06.2006 was alleging obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means in connivance with Sri. Masilamani abusing his position as public servant demanded through Sri. K.K. Jagannatha Reddy, illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for handing over letter of appointment of Sri. Janaki Rami Reddy as Executive Trainee (Technical) and thereby tried to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself.
6. It was submitted that for various reasons, only enquiry in pursuance of fourth Articles of charge was pursued and departmental enquiry was held affording opportunity and after considering findings therein, disciplinary authority passed order of punishment on 04.01.2008, (Annexure - T) dismissing respondent from service which would also be a disqualification for future employment. Challenging same, respondent filed appeal before Appellate Authority. But it was rejected on 01.07.2010 (Annexure - Y). More than 3 1/2 years thereafter, respondent submitted representation on 28.02.2014 for revoking order of dismissal and for conducting fresh enquiry. The representation was rejected on 29.03.2014, citing rejection of appeal on 1.07.2010.
7. Thereafter, W.P. No. 29276/2014 was filed before this Court challenging order of disciplinary authority as well as order of Appellate Authority, belatedly. It was submitted that learned Single Judge illegally interfered with order of punishment. It was submitted that one of main reasons assigned was acquittal of respondent in Criminal case even though, it was in respect of complaint by Sri. V. Senthil Kumar, which would be irrelevant, as charge in the instant case was based on complaint of Sri Vemula Madhukar. Learned Single Judge further held that mere statement of PW.1 in departmental enquiry that he was producing investigati
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for following prescribed procedures and exercising discretion within the bounds of the law in disciplinary proceedings, especially in case....
Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings, but substantial overlaps in evidence may necessitate reconsideration of the latter's findings. Procedural fai....
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordan....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
