Disciplinary authorities must follow procedural rules, but admissions by the accused can impact the outcome of proceedings, justifying the penalties imposed.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This writ petition is filed praying this Court to quash the order impugned dated 09.11.2023, passed in Application No.20125/2023 on the file of Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for short, Tribunal) vide Annexure-A and to allow the application filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that, he was working as Food Inspector, Tahsildar office, Afzalpur and he challenged the order passed by respondent No.2-disciplinary authority dated 03.03.2014 by which the penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed on him invoking Rule 14(ii) Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as KCS (CC & A) Rules 1957, for brevity) treating the period of suspension as suspension period only by filing an application before the Tribunal. In the said order, it is alleged that petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by encashing the cheque amount given by Sri Basavaraj Patil, MLC and the petitioner not participated in the enquiry proceedings by absconding himself. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.03.2014, the petitioner earlier approached the Tribunal at Bangalore Bench in Application No.5730/2017 and the said application came to be transferred to the Tribunal at Belgavi Bench. The Tribunal, Belgavi Bench by order dated 25.02.2020 allowed the application and set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2014 passed by respondent No.2. The matter is remitted back to the authorities to take a decision in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner/applicant into service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order and also with regard to the monitory benefit, the authorities can take a decision depending on the decision to be taken in accordance with law. Having been reinstated into service and posted him to the Deputy Director Office, Uttar Kannada, Karwar keeping the pending enquiry against him and service benefits/salary pertains to the period of compulsory ordered to be considered after disposal of the enquiry. In pursuance to the reinstatement order, the petitioner reported the duty and discharging his duty. Respondent No.2 issued the charge memo/ articles of charges under Rule 11 of KCS (CC & A) Rules 1957 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit reply to the said charges within 15 days.

3. It is contended that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not specific, bald, vague and contrary to rules and same was totally arbitrary, uncalled for and unwarranted. The petitioner has given reply as, that, he is innocent and not misappropriated any amount and specifically denied the charges of negligence, irresponsibility and indiscipline. The respondents having received the reply ought to have withdrawn the charge memo and exonerated him, but without application of mind and subjective satisfaction gone ahead to hold an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with law and rules. None of the witnesses have been examined and no documents have been marked on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. Despite the same, Enquiry Officer has held one sided enquiry and findings are recorded without there being any evidence and submitted the report vide report dated 05.03.2021 holding that the applicant is guilty of the c