AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petitioner is a former Judicial Officer in the services of the Karnataka Judicial Services and laid down office on attaining the age of superannuation as on 30.6.2005.
It appears it had been preceded by a notification dated 28.4.2005 issued by the Government of Karnataka granting approval for the retirement of the petitioner, copy produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition.
The version of the petitioner is that thereafter the petitioner has now received a charge memo charging the petitioner of having committed certain irregularities and misconduct while in service in terms of the articles of charge dated 1.9.2010, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition.
The articles of charge while enables the petitioner to submit his version in the form of written statement within two weeks therefrom or from the date of receipt of articles of charge which it. appears had been served on the petitioner the very day, but the petitioner having represented that the petitioner is desirous of pursuing his legal remedies, had sought for extension of time and also need for further time to enable the petitioner to get himself acquainted with the material based on which the articles of charge have been framed, and in fact, had given one such representation as submitted by Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, though copy of the representation is not per se placed before the court.
Submission of Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is not permitted in law at this point of time as on 1.9.2010 in view of the provisions of Article 214[2][b] of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, [for short ''the Rules''] as the date of initiation of such proceedings is after the expiry of period of four years from the date on which the event is said to have taken place as is very clear even from the articles of charge as the last date which has led to the inference of some misconduct or impropriety on the part of the petitioner even in terms of the articles of charge is 17.1.2005 and it is more than five years and eight months and therefore clearly barred in terms of clause[b] of Sub-rule [2] of Rule 214 of the Rules.
It is also the submission of Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that prior to the receipt of the articles of charge, the petitioner had not been issued with any show cause notice calling upon his explanation, but the articles of charge has been issued straight away and such course of action is also not in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules.
While the legal position may be such that, it is seen that the petitioner had not made known the factual and legal position to the very disciplinary authority which Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits is the High Court of Karnataka, albeit functioning on the administrative side. When it is the very High Court of Karnataka which is virtually the disciplinary authority in a matter of this nature, it is more appropriate that the petitioner files either his objections or reply to the articles of charge making good his version and seeks for an answer to the preliminary objections in the first instance and thereafter may avail of any legal remedies as are open to him.
We are of the definite opinion that it is not necessary for this Court to examine the version of the petitioner in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage and it is proper that the petitioner avails of his remedy for making proper and effective representation before the authority and thereafter can seek such legal remedies.
It is for this reason that in the exercise of our discretion, we decline to entertain the writ petition at this stage of the proceedings.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.