Procedural fairness requires that orders in surcharge proceedings be reasoned, ensuring that necessary parties are included, especially when allegations of misappropriation are involved.

ORDER :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the order dated 15.06.2022 in Dispute No.RCS/CRD/KEM-8/09/2016-17 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant to respondent No.3-Bank. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.01.2015. Respondent No.6 is an employee of respondent No.5- Bank. During the tenure of his office, he had misappropriated the office funds for his personal use, which was found in the yearly interim report submitted by the Bank Officials. Pursuant to the interim report, board of respondent No.5-Bank called explanation from respondent No.6. Thereafter, respondent No.6 executed an indemnity bond on 12.01.2016 by agreeing to pay the entire misappropriated office funds. The Board of Directors of respondent No.5 and its Officials, colluding with respondent No.6 by ignoring Annexure-A, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner making some allegations regarding mis-appropriation. Further, respondent No.3 initiated a proceedings under Section 64 of the Act. A notice was issued to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and he submitted his report to respondent No.3. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 05.11.2016. The petitioner challenged the same before respondent No.2. The petitioner filed an application to implead respondent Nos. 7 to 17. The said application was rejected by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, and also learned counsel for respondent No.5.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He submits that other employees have misappropriated the funds and the petitioner has nothing to do with the surcharge proceedings. He submits that the petitioner filed an application for impleading the other respondents/employees. He submits that respondent No.2 without application of mind has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-P. He submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is not a reasoned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the other respondents supported the impugned order, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working in respondent No.5-Bank. He retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement respondent No.5 initiated surcharge proceedings against the petitioner, and others without arraying the other proposed respondents/employees. Though there are allegations against the proposed respondents, they are necessary and proper parties to the surcharge proceedings. The petitioner has produced the records to show that there are allegations against the proposed respondents therein. Respondent No.2 without looking into the inquiry report has rejected the application of the petitioner vide order at Annexure-P. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that respondent No.2 has not assigned any reasons except perusing and considering the written argument presented by the counsel for both parties. On perusal of the interim application submitted by the petitioner, wherein he states that respondent Nos.5 to 15 i.e., respondent Nos.7 to 17 herein in his interim application are the emp