The disciplinary authority can dismiss an employee for negligence and financial discrepancies, provided adequate reasons for disagreement with an enquiry officer's findings are documented as per regulations.

ORDER :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

The petitioner is before this court aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2009 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order dated 01.10.2008, passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner for service.

2. In terms of the order dated 01.10.2008, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service and also directed to forfeit the gratuity and to recover sum of Rs.10,41,719/-.

3. Brief facts noticed from the pleadings are as under:

The petitioner was appointed on 07.02.1975 as Accounts Supervisor in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. On 28.04.2003, a charge-sheet is issued against the petitioner and 13 others alleging negligence in discharge of duties resulting in misappropriation of funds.

On 02.06.2003 the petitioner issued reply denying the charges. A Retired District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 03.10.2003, and on 08.10.2007 the enquiry officer, post enquiry, submitted a report holding that the petitioner is not guilty of charges.

4. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer and issued show cause notice on 14.03.2008 and the petitioner replied to the said notice.

5. The disciplinary authority in terms of order dated 01.10.2008 dismissed the petitioner holding him guilty and ordered to recover Rs.10,41,719/-. As already noticed the appeal before the appellate authority was unsuccessful. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that:

(i) The enquiry officer has held that charges against the petitioner are not proved and there is no allegation of misappropriation of funds against the petitioner and the charges levelled against the petitioner if read carefully would only indicate that he was charged for negligence and not for misappropriation of funds. Under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Services (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971. (for short, ‘the Regulations, 1971’) the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the finding of other enquiry officer is required to issue a show cause notice assigning the reasons for disagreement and thereafter he must consider the reply in the light of the evidence placed in the disciplinary enquiry and then should pass an order. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is in violation of the Regulations, 1971 and principles of natural justice, and on this account that the impugned order has to be set aside.

(ii) The disciplinary and conduct Rules applicable to the respondent – Corporation does not enable the fresh enquiry as the petitioner has attained the age superannuation as such the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits including full backwages.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent –Corporation would contend:

(i) The enquiry officer was not justified in recording a finding of ‘not guilty’ against the petitioner and he has overlooked the material evidence on record and the disciplinary authority is not bound by the order passed by the enquiry officer.

(ii) After appreciating the evidence placed before the disciplinary enquiry, and after going through the procedure in the Accounts Department, the disciplinary authority has issued the second show cause notice with reasons for rejecting the finding of the enquiry officer. The petitioner was asked to show cause for the proposed penalty penalty and there is no violation of any of the Regulations 1971, applicable, as such, the disciplinary authority is justif