SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D.K. SINGH, VENKATESH NAIK T., JJ.
N.G. Chennigaraya, S/o Late Gendappa - Petitioner 
Versus 
State Of Karnataka - Respondent 
WRIT PETITION NO. 3477 OF 2023 (GM-KLA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 8669 OF 2022 (S-DE), WRIT PETITION NO. 11391 OF 2023 (S-R)
Decided on : 03-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR  SRI. SHARADI S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent:SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K, SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA S HEDDURSHETTAR, SRI. VENKATESH.S.ARABATTI, ADVOCATE

Disciplinary authority cannot initiate a second inquiry after an initial report exonerates an employee, as per Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Rule 11A - Entrustment of enquiry to Lokayukta after a prior enquiry report found charges not proved - The court found that the disciplinary authority’s action of appointing a new inquiry after an inquiry report was submitted is not permitted under Rule 11A, which only allows the authority to either disagree or remit the case back for further inquiry. (Paras 6, 8, 10)

(B) Disciplinary Procedure - The court ruled that the disciplinary authority must act on the findings of the inquiry officer, reaffirming that the decision cannot undermine the principle of fair disciplinary proceedings.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired District Manager of KMDCL, challenged the Lokayukta's findings and penalties imposed based on an inquiry report that contradicted a previous internal report which found no charges substantiated.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the Lokayukta's enquiry and the resultant punitive order as they were beyond the permissible scope of the KCS (CCA) Rules.

Issues: The main issue was the legality of appointing a fresh inquiry officer after an initial inquiry report exonerated the petitioner, along with the ramifications of this decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the explicit provisions of Rule 11A do not authorize a new inquiry once an inquiry officer has submitted a report, thereby ensuring compliant disciplinary procedures.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural actions taken in the inquiry against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. disciplinary authority's powers under karnataka civil services rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. supreme court's stance on supplementary inquiries. (Para 9)
4. set aside enquiry due to procedural violation. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

D K SINGH, J.

1. All these three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner since retired was working as a District Manager, the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited (for short 'KMDCL')-respondent No.2. The challenge in these writ petitions is regarding entrusting the enquiry to Lokayukta, and thereafter, the enquiry report and consequential punishment order inflicted upon the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of Lokayukta.

2. As per the Punishment Order dated 30.12.2022, Lokayukta has recommended for withholding of 10% of pension payable to the petitioner for a period of five years and also to recover the sum of Rs.36,170/- from the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. The Competent Authority i.e., respondent No.2, the Managing Director of the KMDCL has accepted the recommendation and imposed the penalty as recommended by the Lokayukta vide order dated 15.11.2023.

3. Initially, the Corporation itself proceeded against the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and submitted the report (vide Annexure-C). The enquiry officer was a retired District and Sessions Judge. The Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report dated 22.12.2018 finding that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. It appears that respondent No.2 considered the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, and was of the opinion that, in view of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the departmental proceedings, the case against the petitioner should be closed.

4. The said recommendation of the Managing Director for closing the case against the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report dated 22.12.2018 submitted by the enquiry officer was not accepted by the Government and vide the order dated 30.04.2020, entrusted the enquiry in respect of the same allegation under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (KCS (CCA) Rules) to the Karnataka Lokayukta. The Lokayukta framed charges against the petitioner on 29.10.2020 and the enquiry officer submitted the report dated 22.12.2022 (at Annexure-P). The Upalokayukta, the respondent No.3 after considering the report made the recommendation dated 30.12.2022 for inflicting the punishment of withholding of 10% pension amount for a period of five years and recovery of Rs.36,170/- from the salary of the petitioner.

5. The Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited has adopted the Kerala Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 in respect of the disciplinary matters viz. suspension, enquiry, procedure, for inflicting minor and major penalty, joint enquiry, special procedure, appeals and consideration of appeals. It is evident from the Rules framed by the Board of Directors of Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited in respect of the appointments and service conditions of the staff of the Karnataka Minority Development Corporation Limited which are called the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited (Recruitment and Conditions of Services), Rules, 2011, KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 have been adopted. The sub-rule 1 of rule 6 of the said Rules is in respect of the enquiries, penalties and appeals, which reads as under:

"6. DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRES, PENALTIES AND APPEALS:

1) In respect of disciplinary matter viz., suspension, enquiry, procedure for imposing Minor and Major penalties, Joint enquiry, Special Procedure, appeals and consideration of appeals, the provisions of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 shall Mutatis Mutandis be applicable, EXPLANATION: The following sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top