CCS Rules | Disciplinary Authority Need Not Hear Officer While Disagreeing With Enquiry Report Which Exonerated Him: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that Rule 11A(2) of State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules does not contemplate giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer before Disciplinary authority recording the point of disagreement on the findings made by the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge. 

A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Rajesh Rai K said, “We are of the view that no such opportunity is required to be given to the delinquent officer under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the CCA Rules at the stage of recording the points of disagreement on the findings of Enquiry Officer of any of the charge(s).”

The court was hearing a matter wherein, T Nalini who was working M/s Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd as a junior assistant, had taken leave from 31.05.2004 to 30.06.2004. She was issued a charge by the employer on three counts. The enquiry officer appointed did not find the three charges proved against her.

The Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report and recorded his point of disagreement in respect of the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of all three charges. The officer was issued a notice dated 07.10.2011 intimating her, the point of disagreement over the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of three charges and her response to the point of disagreement was called for.

Following the consideration of the officer's reply, the authority passed an order of punishment postponing two annual increments with cumulative effect and forfeiting 50% of the salary for the period under which the officer was compulsorily retired and did not work. The authority treated the period of absence from 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 as unauthorized absence from service.

The officer challenged the order before the Single judge, which after placing reliance on the judgment in PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS VS KUNJ BEHARI MISRA (1987) held that before recording points of disagreement on the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charges, the delinquent official was required to be given a notice.

The single judge set aside the punishment order as well as the Appellate order and directed the employer to pay all the benefits. Against this the employer approached the division bench in appeal. 

The bench said said that Rule 11-A (2) does not contemplate issuing any notice to the delinquent official at the stage of recording the point of disagreement on the findings of the inquiry officer on any of the charges.

However, it said that, before recording the final finding on the charge after considering the reply of the delinquent officer, the principles of Natural Justice have to be followed and in this case, it has been done by the Disciplinary Authority.

Following which it held “We are of the considered view that learned Single Judge has erred in holding that sub-rule(2) of Rule 11A of the CCA Rules contemplates providing an opportunity to the delinquent officer before recording the point of disagreement on the charge(s) on the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charge(s).”

Accordingly it set aside the single judge's order. 

However, considering that the officer has been leading a difficult life inasmuch as she has a mentally retarded grown up daughter, and she could not focus on her service, because of the need to attend to her mentally retarded grown up daughter the bench said:

"The punishment inflicted on respondent No.1/petitioner for withholding two increments with cumulative effect, is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by respondent No.1, particularly when the Enquiry Officer did not find the charges proved.”

The bench thus modified the first punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is modified to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.

Insofar as the third punishment is concerned, the bench directed that the absence period from 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 should be treated for continuity of service, without payment of salary for the said period on the principle of 'No work, no pay'.

The appeal was disposed of. 

Appearance: Advocate Manasi Sharma for Petitioner.

Advocate R Krishnamurthy FOR C/R-1.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

Case Title: M/S KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD AND T Nalini & ANR

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1641 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order