Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, T.M.NADAF
Aravind Channabasappa Angadi (Aravind C. Angadi), S/o Channabasappa Angadi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
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
Disciplinary authorities must follow procedural rules, but admissions by the accused can impact the outcome of proceedings, justifying the penalties imposed.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for disagreeing with enquiry officer findings and issue a second show cause notice before imposing punishment, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an independent and impartial Enquiry Officer, the observance of natural justice, and the appointment of a Presenting Officer in....
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness, but the absence of witness examination does not automatically void an inquiry if the charged party fails to propose witnesses.
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
