The State of Karnataka vs Sri S. Hanumanthappa

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) in Application No. 2244/2008 dated 30.08.2012 by which the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority is reduced to minimum of pay-scale for a period of four years from 5.1.2008, with a direction that he will not earn increments during the period of reduction with reference to the reduced pay and certain other directions are also issued. The petitioner-State aggrieved by the reduction of penalty imposed on the respondent herein, has approached this Court. Totally 7 charges were framed against the petitioner, out of them three charges i.e., 1, 2 and 5 were held to be proved by the Disciplinary Authority and charge No. 4 was held to be partly proved. Rest of the charges were held not proved. The Disciplinary Authority based on the findings that charge Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are proved and charge No. 4 was partly proved, imposed penalty of dismissal against the petitioner. The said order of dismissal is questioned by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed in part by the impugned order.

The respondent herein was the Municipal Commissioner Grade-I of City Municipal Council, Kolar, during the period from 10.3.1996 to 21.3.1996 and from 3.8.1998 to 4.8.2000. On a complaint made to Karnataka Lokayukta regarding irregularities in City Municipal Council, Kolar, the preliminary report was sent by Upalokayuktha to Government u/s 12(3) of the Act on 20.2.2002. After examining the report, the Government by the order dated 19.4.2002 directed that the enquiry be held by Upalokayuktha under Section/Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. Pursuant to the same the enquiry was conducted by Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta. After holding departmental enquiry, the report came to be submitted on 15.7.2005 against the petitioner holding that charges 1, 2 and 5 are proved and charge No. 4 is partly proved after issuing show-cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority finally passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner.

The KAT after carefully re-assessing the material on record concluded that the Disciplinary Authority is not justified in concluding that charges 1, 2 and 5 are proved. Consequently the Tribunal concluded that charges 1, 2 and 5 are not proved. On going through the material on record, we do not find any ground to dislodge the findings of the Tribunal in that regard, inasmuch as the enquiry officer based on insufficient material had held that the charges 1, 2 and 5 are proved. Detailed and valid reasons are assigned by the Tribunal, while coming to the conclusion. On going through the order of the Tribunal and material on record, we do not disagree with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Even on charge No. 4 the Tribunal is justified in holding that the said charge is partly proved.

Even the Enquiry Officer held that the said charge is not proved in full but proved in part. Charge No. 4 relates to misappropriation and the said charge was framed not only against the petitioner but also against six other officials working in City Municipal Council, Kolar. The enquiry officer on facts has concluded that the petitioner being the head of the Institution should have been very vigilant in verifying the signatures of the beneficiaries before releasing the amount. Virtually the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have concluded that other six officials against whom charge is framed were responsible for forging the signatures of the beneficiaries as well as the petitioner. In the cross-examination, petitioner has denied the signatures found on the documents and has stated that his signatures are forged. The petitioner had even made a report against one Balakumar (FDA) working in City Municipal Council, Kolar, seeking permission to dismiss him on the ground of alleged irregularities. The said Balakumar is subsequently dismissed from service. These facts clearly goes to show that the financial irregularities/ misappropriation is committed by other six officials including Balakumar, who is dismissed. But however, petitioner being the head of the Institution should have been more careful and he should not have been negligent while sanctioning the bills. Therefore, the Tribunal has also rightly concluded that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner apart from lapses and omissions committed by other six officials. Because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority ought to not to have dismissed him from service. It is no doubt true that the petitioner should have been more vigilant, but the fact remains that misappropriation is committed by certain other six officials against whom appropriate action is taken.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in reducing the penalty to the minimum of that pay-scale for a period of four years from 5.1.2008 and certain other penalties are also imposed. Since the penalty imposed by the Tribunal is commensurate with the partly proved charge, no interference is called for. Accordingly the petition fails and the same stands dismissed.