Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.T.Narendra Prasad, J.
Mahendraraj Ubhale - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Controller - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 204207 of 2014 (S-KSRTC)
Decided On : 08-09-2022
Regulation - Disciplinary Proceedings - Imposition of Minor Penalty without Opportunity - Quashing of Orders
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a charge man in the respondent Corporation, challenged the imposition of a penalty and subsequent denial of promotion due to a disciplinary enquiry initiated against him. The petitioner argued that the penalty was imposed without giving him an opportunity, contrary to Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1971.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the penalty was imposed without the disciplinary authority passing an order dispensing with the enquiry, as required by Regulation 22. As a result, the impugned orders imposing penalty and denying promotion were quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry.
Issues: Imposition of penalty without opportunity, compliance with Regulation 22, denial of promotion based on disciplinary proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that before imposing a minor penalty, the disciplinary authority must consider whether an enquiry is necessary and pass an order dispensing with the enquiry if deemed appropriate. Failure to do so renders the imposition of penalty vitiated.
Final Decision: The impugned orders imposing penalty and denying promotion were quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry.
JUDGMENT
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has called into question the order dtd. 29/1/2007 vide Annexure-C imposing penalty by the respondent in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. He has also challenged the consequential endorsement issued by the respondent vide Annexures-D dtd. 4/1/2010 and Annexure-F dtd. 30/6/2010.
2. The petitioner was working as a charge man in respondent " "Corporation. A departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure-A dtd. 22/12/2006. The respondent has issued articles of charges. Pursuant to that, vide Annexure-B dtd. 22/1/2007, the petitioner has given a reply. On considering the reply of the petitioner the impugned order Annexure-C is passed on 29/1/2007 imposing penalty of Rs.500.00. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dtd. 30/6/2010 vide Annexure-F has confirmed Annexure-C and dismissed the appeal and also subsequently, petitioner's promotion has been denied on the ground that departmental enquiry and penalty has been imposed. To that effect, Annexure-D dtd. 4/1/2010 has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has imposed a minor penalty as per Regulation 22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short, 'Regulation'). Before imposing penalty the respondent ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner. Without giving such opportunity penalty has been imposed. The same is contrary to Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1971. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1996 Kar.3409 in the case of THE MALLESWRAM LADIES ASSOCIATION vs. H.N.CHANNAIAH.
4. Per contra, Sri Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent " " Corporation has contended that the impugned penalty order has been passed after giving opportunity to the petitioner and after considering the reply given by the petitioner the minor penalty has been imposed. Therefore, there is no violation of any provision of Regulation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner when he was in service. It is also not in dispute that the disciplinary authority has issued a charge memo vide Annexure-A dtd. 22/12/2006. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has submitted his reply dtd. 22/1/2007 vide Annexure-B. The respondent has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-C imposing minor penalty of recovery of Rs.500.00. As per Regulation 22, the procedure for imposing the minor penalty after the charge memo is served is after receiving reply from the worker, if disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the minor penalty can be imposed and enquiry has to be dispensed, the authority has to pass an order dispensing the enquiry and communicate the same to the petitioner. The respondent without passing any order for dispensing with the enquiry has passed the impugned order. Even this Court in CHANNAIAH (supra) has held that before minor penalty could be imposed it is delegatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider the question of holding or dispensing with the enquiry into the allegations made against the delinquent employee. An enquiry would become necessary only in cases where the disciplinary authority consider to be so and record its opinion in the express term and without expressing its opinion enquiry cannot be dispensed with.
7. In the case on hand, the disciplinary authority has not passed any order dispensing the enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated, it is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the impugned orders at Annexure-C dtd. 29/1/2007 and also Annexure-F, an
Before imposing a minor penalty, the disciplinary authority must consider the necessity of an enquiry and pass an order dispensing with the enquiry if deemed appropriate, as per Regulation 22.
Minor penalties cannot be imposed without conducting an enquiry or assigning reasons for dispensing with the enquiry, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Minor penalties require adherence to procedural fairness, including an inquiry, failing which the penalty is void.
The court affirmed that a penalty classified as minor does not require a full inquiry, and the procedural requirements for imposing such penalties were adequately met.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for following the prescribed procedure, including issuing a show cause notice and conducting a departmental enquiry, before imposin....
It is well settled, by a series of rulings of Apex Court and various High Courts including Court, that in a case where disciplinary authority and enquiry authority are two different functionaries, th....
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
