Disciplinary findings lacking substantial evidence warrant quashing of related proceedings under constitutional review principles.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"The Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Certiorari or quashing the Order dated 9/9/2024 issued by first respondent - Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation (A Government of Karnataka Undertaking) (Annexure-F) bearing No.KRUN/JU/01/2023-24/1084 & This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue such other writ or writs or directions in the nature of a writ as this Hon'ble High Court may deem it fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned AGA for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and invite my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondents on the ground that there was shortage of additional 0.89% is well within the permissible 2% as held by this Court in the cases of A. Prabhulinga Swamy v. The Karnataka Warehousing Corporation and another [W.P.No.33426/2013 C/w W.P.No.4484/2018 dated 31.05.2024] andKarnataka State Ware Housing Corporation Employees Union (Regd) and others v. Union of India and others [W.P.No.39245/2011 dated 07.06.2024] and as such, the impugned notice and all further proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed.

4. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon A. Prabhulinga Swamy's and Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation Employees Union (Regd)'s cases supra.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1 has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of 0.89%, which is in excess of the maximum 1% permissible limit and that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him.

7. In this context, in the case of A. Prabhulinga Swamy's case supra, this Court held as under:

"Sri. A. Prabhulinga Swamy, who is now deceased, is the petitioner in W.P.No.33426/2013, and he was in employment as a Manager, Grade-I with the first respondent - the Karnataka Warehousing Corporation. Sri. A. Prabhulinga Swamy has retired with effect from 31.12.2012 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He has instituted this petition in W.P.No.33426/2013 impugning the second respondent's order dated 13.03.2013. The second respondent by this order has concluded that the petitioner would be entitled for retiral benefits subject to deduction of Rs.8,63,943/-, and the second respondent has computed this amount as comprising of.

[a] Rs.5,78,020/- as loss caused to the first respondent during the year 2004- 05 in handling maize procured under a scheme.

[b] Rs.2,85,923/- towards the loan availed by the petitioner as against the Provident Fund and the interest payable thereon.

2. At the outset, this Court must observe that there is no dispute that Sri. A. Prabhulinga Swamy's retiral benefits had to be settled subject to deduction of the loan amount with interest at Rs.2,85,923/-, and the dispute in W.P.No.33426/2013 and the other petition in W.P.No.4484/2018 is confined to the decision to release the Provident Fund subject to deduction of Rs.5,78,020/-. Sri. A. Prabhulinga Swamy's grievance with the decision to deduct Rs.5,