Disciplinary authorities are the sole judges of evidence during inquiries, and judicial review is limited to procedural fairness and not the merits of the findings.

ORDER :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Executive Engineer, is before this Court questioning order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, Tribunal, in Application Nos.266-268/2018, whereunder his challenge to the order of penalty of withholding 5% of pension permanently and recovery of loss caused to the State Exchequer is rejected.

2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in PWD Sub-Division, Gubbi, on the allegation of committing misconduct in carrying out the work of improvement and re-chip carpeting to Nelligere-Sira road from 29 to 36 KM in Gubbi Taluk, Articles of Charge dated 07.06.2014 were issued by respondent No.2. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, wherein the Disciplinary Authority examined PW1 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P4, whereas petitioner herein examined himself as DW2 apart from examining another as DW1 and marking documents Exs.D1 to D9. The Enquiry Officer of respondent No.2 submitted a report dated 20.05.2016 holding the charge against all the three accused is proved.

2.1 The Upalokayukta, under recommendation dated 07.06.2016, forwarded the enquiry report to the State Government. The State Government, on receipt of enquiry report as well as recommendation, issued second show cause- notice dated 25.06.2016 to the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of the second show-cause notice dated 25.06.2016, submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 04.09.2017 imposed penalty of withholding 5% of his pension in exercise of its power under Rule 214(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 as well as recovery of ₹1,21,278/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

2.2 Questioning the order of penalty, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the aforesaid applications. The Tribunal under the impugned order rejected the applications holding that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is proper and correct and does not call for interference. Against which, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri S.V. Thilakraj for Sri H.N. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Shivareddy for respondent No.1.

Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and the alleged charge against the petitioner is false and baseless. Learned counsel would submit that the work of improvement and re- chip carpeting to Nelligere-Sira Road was entrusted to a contractor and petitioner has supervised the work in a proper manner. If the contractor has not carried out the work properly, the authorities ought to have taken action against the contractor and not against the petitioner. Further, learned counsel would submit that the charges against the petitioner are not proved by producing cogent material or evidence. As there is no cogent material on record to prove the charges, the Enquiry Officer could not have held the charges against the petitioner as proved. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the second show cause notice, which the respondent authorities have failed to consider while passing the order of penalty. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the order passed by Tribunal and would submit that the authorities have imposed penalty for the proven misconduct which, according to him, requires no interference by this Court. Learned Additional Government Adv