Charges in disciplinary proceedings must be specific and detailed to satisfy natural justice and avoid predjudice to the accused.

ORDER :

(S.G. PANDIT, J.)

In the above two writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the common order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Application No.4409/2021 c/w Application No.17/2021, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) rejecting their applications, questioning the imposition of penalty of withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect and withholding promotion for a period of 4 years from the date they become eligible for promotion under Government Order dated 20.07.2020.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

At the relevant point of time, the petitioner in W.P.No.25759/2024 was working as Forest Guard and petitioner in W.P.No.21666/2022 was working as Range Forest Officer at Sakaleshpura. On the complaint of one Suresh D.K., who was working as Watchman on daily wage basis, investigation was taken up by the 3^rd respondent and thereafter, considering the report of the Upa Lokayukta, the 1^st respondent-state entrusted the enquiry to the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent issued common Articles of Charge to the petitioners dated 04.01.2017 alleging that while they were working as Forest Guard and Range Forest Officer respectively during the year 2011 have failed to discharge their duties diligently resulting in cutting and moving of certain valuable produce of cut trees in Sakaleshpura Forest. Thus, they have failed to maintain absolute integrity besides devotion to duty and thus misconducted themselves under Rule 3(1) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct)Rules 1966. The 3^rd respondent conducted enquiry.

3. During the course of enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 i.e., the complainant and Sri.G.Venkatesh, Assistant Conservator of Forest and Investigation Officer who had submitted Ex.P6 (Annexure-A3 in W.P.No.25759/2024) and marked as many as 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, whereas the petitioners-accused Government Servants examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 apart from marking Ex.D1 to Ex.D9.

4. The Enquiry Officer under report dated 29.06.2019 recorded a finding that the charge is proved and the petitioners have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The petitioners were issued with second show-cause notice along with enquiry report and recommendation of Upa-Lokayuktha. The petitioners said to have submitted their explanation to the second show-cause notice. The first respondent-State Government, under impugned Government Order dated 20.07.2020 imposed punishment of withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect and withholding of promotion for a period of 4 years from the date they become eligible for promotion. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioners were before the Tribunal in the above stated applications. The Tribunal, observing that re-appreciation of material placed before the Enquiry Officer is not permissible and came to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is based on materials. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court in these two writ petitions.

5. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajgopal along with Sri.Amruthesh C., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25759/2024 as well as learned senior counsel Professor C.M.Nagabhushana, for petitioner in W.P.No.21666/2022; Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

6. Learned s