A public employer cannot arbitrarily refuse reinstatement of an employee exonerated in a disciplinary inquiry. If the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry findings, it must issue a second show cause notice and pass a reasoned, transparent order rather than issuing cryptic or unmotivated refusals.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.PCB/23/ADA/12/1169 DATED 19.09.2024 AT ANNEXURE-AA ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE AND GRANTING ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS LIKE ARREARS OF SALARY FROM DATE OF TERMINATION FROM SERVICE TO TILL DATE OF REINSTATEMENT ALONG WITH BANK RATE OF INTEREST TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as a Law Assistant in the first respondent - Board on 13.07.1998 and continued to work with the first respondent on contract basis upto 04.10.2012 when his services were terminated by the first respondent-Board. Meanwhile, criminal proceedings in Crime No.75/2012 were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act which were assailed by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5981/2012 along with Gurumurthy and others in which the petitioner was arrayed as petitioner No.2. The said petition came to be allowed vide final order dated 18.02.2013 which is extracted as under:

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.75/2012 of Lokayuktha Police, City Division, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( for short, ‘P.C. Act’), have sought for quashing the FIR and the proceedings thereon principally on the ground that the procedure adopted by the respondent police in conducting search and seizure without registering the case as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is bad in law and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, I see considerable force in this contention. According to the case of the prosecution, Dy.S.P., Lokayukatha, Bangalore, received credible information on 01.09.2012 that corrupt activities are going-on in the office of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board in the form of officials therein demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the publics for discharging official duties. On receipt of such credible information, the Dy.S.P. along with his staff and panchas, conducted a raid on the said office between 3.15 and 8.15 pm on 01.09.2012. During search, he noticed cash of Rs.35,000/- in the possession of Accused Nos. 3 & 4, cash of Rs.60,400/- in possession of Accused No.5 , cash of Rs.5,00,000/- in a bag in possession of Accused No.1 and cash of Rs.3,00,000/- in the table drawer of Accused No.2 and since the accused persons did not furnish any satisfactory explanation, the said cash was seized by drawing a detailed mahazar and the accused persons were arrested on the premise that the money found in their possession had been received as illegal gratification for discharging their official duties. Later, on return to the office, the Dy.S.P. submitted a report, based on which the aforesaid case came to be registered and investigation was taken-up.

2) It is now well-settled law by catena of decisions that the police officer can embark upon the investigation of the case only after registering an FIR as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C.. This Court in the case of L.Shankaramurthy and others Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police , City Division, Bangalore Urban Division, Bangalore [2012 (5) Kar.L.J. 545], after referring to the prin