Date:22/09/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/09/22/stories/2006092205380500.htm

Karnataka - Bangalore

`Prefer judicial decision to findings in inquiry proceedings'

Staff Reporter

Sakleshpur municipal council chief officer to be reinstated

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court has held that when similar charges are being dealt with by a court and in inquiry proceedings against any employee, a judicial decision must be preferred to the findings and reasons recorded in disciplinary (inquiry) proceedings.

A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice H. Billappa citing a Supreme Court ruling in the Paul Antony case said, "If a charge of misconduct and criminal charge are framed on the same set of charge in both the disciplinary and criminal proceedings and if an employee is acquitted in the criminal case, then the decision of the judicial officer must be preferred to the findings and reasons recorded in inquiry proceedings."

The Bench was dealing with an appeal by a chief officer of Sakleshpur Town Municipal Council (TMC), Hassan district, who was dismissed from service for alleged irregularities.

It said the charges and statement of imputations in both the disciplinary and criminal proceedings under Sections 7 and 12 1 (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were based on the same set of facts. Quoting the Supreme Court, it said a judicial decision rendered by a district judge — in this case acquitting him — must be preferred to the findings and reasons recorded in disciplinary proceedings. The Chief Officer, C.D. Venkataramana Shetty, had challenged his dismissal by the authorities on September 17, 1993 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT). He said the proceedings were initiated against him following a complaint on July 26, 1989, by N.D. Ramesh alleging that he had demanded a bribe for permitting the construction of a hotel in Sakleshpur.

An inquiry was held and Mr. Shetty was dismissed from service. Simultaneously, a case was registered in a district court against him. The KAT, however, had dismissed his application and Mr. Shetty had moved the High Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench said the order of removal was oppressive, unfair and unjust. It said the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Paul Antony case were not brought to the notice of the KAT. Setting aside the KAT order, the Bench quashed the order of removal of Mr. Shetty passed by both the disciplinary and appellate authorities and directed the State to reinstate him without back wages and continuity of service.