Karnataka High CourtSri T Vishwanath vs The Managing Director on 16 December, 2015Author:Ashok B.HinchigeriBench:Ashok B. Hinchigeri1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

                              BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

           WRIT PETITION No.15848 OF 2015 (S-DE)

BETWEEN :

Sri T.Vishwanath,
S/o.T.V.Thimmaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at # 183, "Anugraha Nilaya"
5th Main Road, B.C.C.Layout,
Chandra Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 040.                                     ... Petitioner

                    (By Sri Sachin V.R., Advocate)

AND:

The Managing Director,
Dr.Ambedkar Development Corporation Ltd.
9th and 10th Floor,
V.V.Mini Tower,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.                                 ...Respondent

                    (By Sri C.Jagadish, Advocate)

      This writ petition is filed underArticles 226and227of the
Constitution of India praying to qush the notice dated 16.3.2015 vide
Annexure-A passed by the respondent, etc.
                                    2




     This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, the Court made the following:

                              ORDERThe petitioner has called into question the notice, dated

16.03.12015 (Annexure-A) proposing to hold the departmental

enquiry.2. Sri V.R.Sachin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that this Court, by its judgment, dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure--B)

passed in Criminal Appeal No.2764/2010 has already acquitted the

petitioner of all the charges. He submits that there is no proof to

show that the petitioner ever fabricated the records and diverted

Rs.24,726/-.     He submits that the de-facto complainant Sri

Kallappa Ramappa Sangolli was mislead into filing a false complaint

against the petitioner. He submits that what is alleged to have taken

place in 2006 is ordered to be enquired into now. He submits that

the petitioner was reinstated into the services of the respondent in

January 2013.        When the petitioner is due for promotion, the

impugned notice is issued only with a view to deny the promotion

to the petitioner.33.In support of his submissions, he relies on the judgment of

the Rajasthan High Court in the case ofSATYA DEV SHARMA

vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERSreported in

1994 (1) WLN 48.4. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my

thoughtful consideration. The issuance of the articles of charges

and the initiation of the enquiry proceedings do not give any firm

cause of action to the delinquent employee to file the writ petition.

The enquiry officer may not hold the petitioner guilty of the charge.

Even if the enquiry officer holds him guilty of the charge the

disciplinary authority may not act on the report of the enquiry

officer.   It is only when the punitive order is passed by the

disciplinary authority that the delinquent official gets a firm cause of

action to approach the courts.In saying so, I am fortified by the

Apex Court's judgment in the case ofUNION OF INDIA &

ANR. vs. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANAreported in

AIR 2007 SC 906. The portions under Head Note A reads as

follows:4"Ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show cause
    notice. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be
    entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is
    that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature.
    A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any
    cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order
    which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been
    issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite
    possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or
    after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the
    proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is
    well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is
    infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not
    infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order
    imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party
    is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
    No doubt, insome very rare and exceptional cases the High Court
    can quash a charge-sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be
    wholly without jurisdciton or for some other reason if it is wholly
    illegal.5. It is also profitable to refer to the Apex Court's decision in

the case ofSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND

OTHERS vs. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHAreported5in (2012) 11 SCC 565. Paras 8 and 12 ofthe said decisionare

extracted hereinbelow:"8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in
      a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any
      grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by
      filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary
      authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a
      court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary
      proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the
      court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the
      gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case
      weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee
      and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the
      circumstance......... .............12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the
      effect that charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of
      challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent
      unless it is established that the same has been issued by an
      authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
      Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be
      quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to
      deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on6the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage
       or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay
       creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged
       misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration
       while quashing the proceedings."6. Just because the petitioner is acquitted in a criminal case he

cannot resist the departmental enquiry. The standard of proof

required in the departmental enquiry proceedings is different from

the one required in the criminal proceedings. Whether there is any

proof for establishing the charge or not do not fall within the

domain of this Court. It is for the petitioner to raise all the tenable

defences before the enquiry officer and/or before the disciplinary

authority.7. With this observation, I dismiss this petition. No order as

to costs.Sd/-JUDGE

Cm/-