A party is entitled to a fair opportunity to contest disciplinary proceedings against them, particularly where their absence from earlier hearings is attributable to unavoidable circumstances.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Application No.10192/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi, [Hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”] whereby the said application filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 06.06.2019 produced at Annexure-A24 on the file of respondent No.1 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement and for reinstatement was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Lokayukta and the learned AGA for respondent No.1-State and perused the material on record.

3. Perusal of the material on record will indicate that one Bhimanagouda Kabadagi filed a complaint on 02.03.2010 with the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura alleging that there were several deserving houseless persons in whose favour houses had to be sanctioned despite which the petitioner- Panchayat Development Officer as well as the President, Smt.Renuka Gopal Jadapet had illegally sanctioned houses to ineligible and well of persons and the road leading to their agricultural land was sub-standard and an enquiry in this regard was warranted.

4. In pursuance to the said complaint, the Lokayukta initiated enquiries on two charges viz., (i) allotting of houses to beneficiaries, who already own houses under the Housing Scheme 2007-2009 and (ii) releasing the funds to the beneficiaries, who had not constructed the houses. The petitioner is said to have participated in the enquiry and denied the charges subsequent to which the petitioner did not contest the enquiry proceedings any further culminating in an enquiry report dated 12.06.2018 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and issuing a recommendation dated 14.06.2018 to the respondent No.1-State proposing to impose penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner.

5. Pursuant of the same, the respondent No.1/State issued a show-cause notice dated 11.07.2018 to which the petitioner did not submit any reply and the respondent No.1 issued one more second show-cause notice dated 04.04.2019 to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply, inter alia, contending that he was not guilty of the charges and that an opportunity ought to have been given to him to contest the proceedings since his omission and inability to do so was due to work pressure and constant travel on account of work and due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. It was the grievance of the petitioner that despite detail reply and explanation along with relevant documents submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notices referred to supra, the respondent No.1 proceeded to pass an order of compulsory retirement on 06.06.2019, which was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in Application No.10192/2019, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23.03.2022, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the enquiry report dated 12.06.2018 produced at Annexure-A6 to the application before the Tribunal, which reads as under:

“21. Point No.1: The Disciplinary Authority has examined the complainant by name Sri Bheemagonda Sangappa Kabadagi examined as PW-1. It is his evidence from 2005 to 2008 the DGO., was working as Secretary at Chikkarugi Gram Panchayath and during 2007 to 2010 houses under various scheme granted by the said Panchayath to the rich persons and who are having own houses instead of granting the houses to the poor and needy per