The necessity of compliance with procedural rules in initiating joint inquiries against government servants is crucial; failure to adhere invalidates disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

The above writ petitions are filed questioning the common order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Application Nos.10219, 10324, 10323 and 10326 of 2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the penalty orders dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure- A26 in Application No.10323/2023, Annexure-A22 in Application No.10326/2023, and Annexure-A21 in Application No.10324/203) and order of penalty of dismissal dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure-A24 in Application No.10219/2023) are quashed.

2. Heard Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate for the petitioners-State, and Sri. R.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Respondent No.1-government servants in the respective writ petitions approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid applications questioning the Articles of Charge issued to them individually under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the CCA Rules’). The respondents-government servants submitted their reply to the charge memo and the petitioners- Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondents-government servants, appointed an Inquiry Officer by order dated 05.06.2017 (Annexure-A8) in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. The Inquiry Officer submitted his separate reports in respect of each of the delinquent government officials. The respondents- government servants were issued with second show cause notice along with enquiry report. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of recovery and reducing the pay of the respondents-government servants to minimum of the pay scale for a period of 5 years, and in respect of applicant in Application No.10219 of 2023 imposed penalty of dismissal. Questioning the order of penalty, the respondents were before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on considering the contentions of the parties, only on the ground that Rule 13 of the CCA Rules is violated, set aside the order of penalty and remitted the matter back to government with liberty to proceed further complying Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. Questioning the said order, the State Authorities are before this Court.

4. Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate would submit that the provisions of Rule 13 is complied with and he invites attention of this Court to Government Order (Annexure-A8) dated 05.06.2017, and would submit that the Inquiry Officer is appointed to conduct a common Inquiry under Rule 11 and 13 of the CCA Rules; when the Inquiry Officer is appointed to conduct a common proceeding, it is clear that the State has complied Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. Further, the Principal Government Advocate would submit that the respondents-government servants without raising any objection participated in the proceedings and suffered penalty. He further submits that even in their reply to the second show cause notice, the respondents- government servants had not raised objections with regard to conducting joint inquiry. It is his contention that, having participated in the proceedings, the respondents could not turn around and submit that the procedure followed is not proper. Thus, the learned Principal Government Advocate would pray for allowing the writ petitions.

5. Per contra, Sri. R.Naveen Kumar appearing for the respondent No.1 in the above writ petitions would submit that procedure prescribed under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules is not at all followed. He submits that an order under Rule 13 of the