Sri. Y N Krishna Murthy vs Karnataka Silk Industries ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5177 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

            WRIT PETITION NO.5559/2020 (S-RES)
                       CONNECTED WITH
            WRIT PETITION NO.22131/2021 (S-RES)

IN WP NO. 5559/2020:

BETWEEN :

SRI. Y. N. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O SRI. Y.C. NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 74, 4TH MAIN ROAD
H.V.R. LAYOUT, PRASHANTH NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 079.
                                          ... PETITIONER

(PARTY IN PERSON Y N KRISHNA MURTHY)
AND:

KARNATAKA SILK INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD
(A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
HEAD OFFICE III AND VI FLOOR
PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

                                         ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
                             2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE       PROCEEDINGS      ENQUIRY       CASE     NO.
KSIC/YNK/WP/53029/2018 DATED.4.2.2020 OF THE ENQUIRY
OFFICER    APPOINTED   BY    THE   HIGH    COURT    IN
W.P.NO.53029/2018 BY ITS ORDER DATED 17.12.2019
"LEAVING IT OPEN TO THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY TO
CONSIDER WHETHER FRESH ARTICLE OF CHARGE HAVE TO
BE FRAMED BY HIM PARTICULARIZING THE CHARGES BY AND
STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE 26 OF THE KSIC
1980 AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION FOR INITIATING
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST THE DO AND TO
PROCEED TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY AGAINST HIM AFRESH" THE
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-Q;
CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY TO
TAKE DECISION ON THE ENQUIRY REPORT BY JUSTIFYING OR
FINALIZATION OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED.4.2.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.

IN WP NO. 22131/2021
BETWEEN :

KARNATAKA SILK INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD
HEAD OFFICE III AND VI FLOOR
PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR/
GENERAL MANAGER.
                                        ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

SRI. Y. N. KRISHNA MURTHY
NO. 329, 2ND STAGE, 6TH BLOCK
8TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU - 560 072.
                                        ... RESPONDENT
((PARTY IN PERSON Y N KRISHNA MURTHY)
                                3




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE ORDER IN THE ENQUIRY
REPORT DATED 4.2.2020 ANNEXURE-K TO THE W.P.
NO.53029/2018 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ARTICLE OF
CHARGE SERVED ON THE DELINQUENT OFFICER ARE NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH AND VIOLATIVE OF RULE 26 OF KSIC
CONDUCT DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES 1980.


    THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The parties in these petitions have approached this

Court on multiple occasions over the same issue. The writ

petition in W.P.No.22131/2020 is by the employer, M/s.

Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Ltd., and the writ

petition in W.P.No.5559/2020 is by the employee,

Sri.Y.N.Krishnamurthy. The parties are referred to as the

employer and the employee respectively. Both the employer

and the employee have impugned the Report dated

04.02.2020 submitted by Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, a

Retired District Judge, who is appointed as the Enquiry

Officer by this Court in an earlier round of writ proceedings in

W.P.No.53029/2018.

2. The operative portion of Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna

Bhat's Report dated 04.02.2020 reads as under:

"In view of the fact that the Articles of Charge served on the Delinquent Officer [the employee] are not in accordance with and are in violation of Rule 26 of KSIC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980, leaving it open to the Disciplinary Authority to consider whether fresh Articles of Charges have to be framed by him particularizing the charges by and strictly in accordance with Rule 26 of the KSIC Rules, 1980 and to take further action for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the D.O. (the Employee) and to proceed to hold an enquiry afresh, the entire file is returned to the Disciplinary Authority of the KSIC Ltd.'

The employer has impugned the Report insofar as Sri

Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat has opined that the Articles of

Charge served on the Delinquent Officer [the employee] are not

in accordance with and are in violation of Rule 26 of KSIC

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 [for short 'KSIC

Rules'], and the employee has impugned the Report insofar as

the observation that the employer will be at liberty to initiate

further action for instituting disciplinary proceedings afresh.

3. Before adverting to the details of the later writ

proceedings between the parties, the initial circumstances

must be mentioned. The employee was appointed as an

'Assistant Sales Officer' in the year 1987 on probation for

three [3] years. However, the employee was kept under

suspension on 11.10.1989. Later, the employee was denied

one increment with cumulative effect. The employee was

again issued with a Show-cause Notice dated 01.12.1993

against proposed action because of shortage in stock. This

Notice dated 01.12.1993 has culminated with the employee

being issued with a warning and recovery of certain amounts

in installments. Subsequently, the petitioner is discharged

from service, but after certain writ proceedings1 the employee

is reinstated on 06.11.1996.

4. If these make the first round of writ proceedings

between the employer and employee, the second round of writ

proceedings begins with the issuance of show-cause notice

dated 08.11.1996 for removal of the employee from service.

The employee is discharged from service with retrospective

effect from 31.03.1994. The employee's appeal before the

Board of Directors is dismissed by the order dated

03.01.1998. However, the writ petition2 against these orders

is allowed and the employer is directed to reinstate the

employee with full back-wages and continuity of service. The

1 These writ proceedings are in WP No.9752/1994, which is disposed of by order dated 19.07.1994 and the writ appeal in WA No.1991/1994 which is disposed of by order dated 25.09.1996. The decision in WA No.1991/1994 is after the opinion of the learned third Judge because of the difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Division Bench.

2 The Writ petition is in W.P. No.8147/1998, and the petition is allowed by the order dated 06.10.2001.

employee is reinstated by order dated 17.11.2001. This

culminates the second round of writ proceedings.

5. The employee, is again issued with a fresh Show-

cause notice-cum-charge sheet dated 14.02.2005, which

forms the basis for the third round writ proceedings. The

employee has impugned this Show-cause notice-cum-Charge

sheet in W.P.No.9159/2005. The employee in this writ

petition contended that the charges contained in the said

notice are vague, unclear and bereft of basic details necessary

to constitute adequate charges. The petition is allowed by the

order dated 12.07.2005 on the ground of delay and latches.

The employer has challenged this Order in

W.A.No.3137/2005, and the Division Bench3 has set aside

this order dated 12.07.2005 with liberty to the employee to

furnish his explanation to the Show-cause notice-cum-charge

sheet. The Division Bench has left open all contentions. The

Division Bench has also reserved liberty to the employee to

3 The Division Bench order is dated 10.02.2006

avail remedies open to him in case his explanation is not

accepted by the employer.

6. At this stage, this Court must observe that

between the issuance of Show-cause notice-cum-charge sheet

dated 14.02.2005 and the decision of the Division Bench in

W.A. No.3137/2005, the employer has issued a separate

order dated 14.10.2005 with detailed and specific

imputations of charges against the employee.4 The

significance of this order dated 14.10.2005 will have to be

examined. But at this stage, this Court must continue to

record the subsequent proceedings between the employer and

the employee.

7. The employer, after the order dated 10.02.2006 in

W.A.No.3137/2005 and perhaps because the petitioner did

not respond to the Show-cause notice-cum-charge sheet

dated 14.02.2005, has appointed an Enquiry Officer by order

4 A list of witness and list of documents are also furnished. The employee denies that these documents are furnished to him.

dated 24.02.2006. The enquiry is conducted, and in the said

proceedings, the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges

against the employee are proved. It is not obvious that

whether the enquiry is based only on the Show-cause Notice-

cum- Chargesheet dated 14.02.2005 or on both the Show-

cause Notice- cum- Chargesheet dated 14.02.2005 and the

statement of imputation, list of witness and list of documents

dated 14.10.2005. Consequentially, the employer has

terminated the employee from services by order dated

08.03.2006, and this has paved way for the fourth round of

writ proceedings.

8. The petitioner has impugned the termination order

dated 08.03.2006 in W.P.No.1449/2008. This petition is

allowed by order dated 03.02.2012, and the matter is

remanded to the Enquiry Officer for conduct of fresh enquiry.

This Court has opined that the Presenting Officer appointed

by the employer did not adduce evidence nor requested the

Enquiry Officer to treat the evidence in the earlier enquiry as

evidence in the current proceedings, nor offered any witness

for cross-examination, and as such, the termination order is

vitiated. This Court also directed the enquiry officer to

complete the enquiry in a time bound manner5.

9. The employer has again terminated the employee

by the order dated 11.07.2012, and this termination Order is

confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated

20.03.2013. This takes us to the fifth round of writ

proceedings. The employee has called in question these

orders dated 11.07.2012 and 20.03.2013 in W.P.

No.21936/2013. This Court has allowed the said Writ

Petition by Order dated 20.09.2017 quashing the aforesaid

Orders directing the employee's reinstatement with 50% of

back wages. The employer is also directed to pay a cost of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) on the

5 The writ appeal in W.A. No.681/2012, as against this order in W.P.No.1449/2008, is disposed of the Division Bench by order dated 16.07.2012 given the limited grievance with the order dated 03.02.2012 viz., that neither subsistence allowance nor back wages is allowed

ground that the employee has suffered victimization. This

Court has also observed that it would be open to the employer

to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings but cautioning that

such initiation must be strictly in accordance with law.

10. The employer has impugned this Order in W.A

No.6359/2017. The Division Bench has quashed this Court's

Order dated 20.09.2017 and the departmental proceedings

are restored for enquiry from the stage of cross examination

of the employer's witness. The findings in these proceedings

as regards the nature of charges and the petitioner's

awareness about the same would be significant. It is stated at

the Bar that a Special Leave Petition [SLP No. 25550/2018]

was preferred by the employee against the decision in W.A.

No.6359/2017, but this petition is dismissed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

11. During the pendency of SLP No.25550/2018, the

employee is terminated from service upon the completion of

enquiry from the stage as ordered in W.A. No.6359/2017. The

said order of termination is confirmed in a departmental

appeal on 22.10.2018, and this leads to the fifth round of writ

proceedings. The employee has filed the next Writ Petition in

W.P 53029/2018 impugning this termination Order dated

06.08.2018 contending inter alia that the employer neither

examined witness or produced documents to prove the

allegation against him.

12. This Court, recording the consensus statement on

behalf of the employer and the employee, has appointed Sri

Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat as the Enquiry Officer with

direction to complete the enquiry and submit a report within

a period of 4 (Four) weeks. Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat

has submitted his impugned Report dated 04.02.2020

opining that the Show-cause Notice-cum-charge sheet is not

accompanied by a separate statement of allegations with

imputations of misconduct and misbehavior, and that articles

of charge dated 14.02.2005 are vague, not specific, not clear

and too general in nature to be understood.

13. The writ petition in W.P. No.5559/20206, which is

filed by the employee impugning the observation by Sri.

Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat as regards the employer's liberty

to initiate disciplinary proceedings afresh, is disposed of by

this Court by the order dated 20.07.2020 holding that the

observation is without jurisdiction. This Court in arriving at

this conclusion has referred to Rule 26 of the KSIC Rules, and

this Court has also directed the employer to set right the

service conditions due to the employee on par with his

immediate junior in service. However, this order dated

20.07.2020 is set aside by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal

No.504/2020 on the short ground that the employer did not

have sufficient opportunity to contest the employee's

grievance against the employer's liberty to initiate disciplinary

proceedings afresh.

6 One of the writ petitions being considered by this Court now.

14. After the Division Bench Judgment, the employee

has filed an application for grant of interim relief for

directions to pay maintenance amount during the pendency

of this writ petition, and this application is rejected by the

order dated 29.06.2021 because the employee chose not to

press the application. In the course of this order dated

29.06.2021, this Court has observed that an inference will

have to be drawn that the termination order dated

06.08.2018, which is impugned in W.P. No.53039/2018, is

not set aside.

15. The employee has also later amended the writ

petition in W.P. No.5559/2020 to include the prayer for

mandamus to the employer to reinstate him into service and

grant all consequential reliefs and benefits from the date of

the termination order dated 08.03.2006 in terms of the

Division Bench Order dated 16.07.2012 in Writ Appeal

No.681/2012. As already observed, the Division Bench in

this decision [which is part of the fourth round of writ

proceedings] has disposed of the writ appeal, which is filed

against the order dated 03.02.2012 in W.P. No.1449/2008,

with liberty to the employee to raise the question of payment

of allowances of back wages. The question of the employee's

termination and is right to seek monetary relief remain open

because of the present proceedings.

16. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the employer

and the employee, this Court is of the considered view that

the following questions arise for consideration:

[a] Whether Sri. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat could have truncated the enquiry proceedings reinstated by common consensus of the employer and the employee for the reasons that the charges against the employee are vague, not specific and too general in nature and that the employee is not served with separate statement of imputation of misconduct or other document.

[b] If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, what order would be just and reasonable in light of the observation by Sri. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat that the employer would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and the subsequent events such as the employer, on 17.02.2020, serving the employee with the statement of allegations with reference to the show cause notice dated 14.02.2005.

17. This Court must at the outset observe that the

employee challenged the legality of the termination order

dated 11.07.2012 and the appellate authority's order dated

20.03.2013 confirming the termination order and his

consequential dismissal from service in W.P. No.21936/2013.

The earlier round of writ proceedings offers the context. The

employee has participated in the enquiry preceding the

termination order dated 20.03.2013, and he has cross

examined the employer's witnesses. The Enquiry Report, after

these proceedings, is dated 07.05.2012. The merits of the

observation by Sri. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat that the

charges vide the Show cause Notice-cum-charge sheet dated

14.02.2005 must be examined in the light of the observation

by this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition in

W.P. No.21936/2013 and the subsequent order dated

27.04.2018 in Writ Appeal No.6359/2017.

18. This Court, after examining the fourteen charges

as contained in the show-cause notice-cum-charge sheet

dated 14.02.2005 has found that these charges were vague,

and has concluded that the vague charges vitiate the entire

disciplinary proceedings. This Court's conclusion in this

regard is revisited in the aforesaid writ appeal in W.A.

No.6359/2017. The Division Bench has found categorically

that the charges against the employee cannot be held to be

either vague or unclear or without any supporting

documents. The Division Bench's finding is with reference to

certain specific charges in the show cause notice-cum-charge

sheet dated 14.02.2005 as illustration. It would be useful to

refer to the Division Bench's conclusions in these regards:

"55. It was not the case of petitioner that at any stage of the domestic enquiry or earlier to it, documents relied upon by the Corporation in support of the charges leveled against him had not been furnished and thereby it had occasioned failure in compliance of principles of natural justice. Unless it is shown or established that EO has placed reliance on a document, which had not been furnished to the delinquent employee, it would not fall within the 'mischief of prejudice'. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UP STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED vs P C CHATURVEDI & OTHERS reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5519 has held:

"9. Records reveal that copies of large number of documents were supplied to the respondent No. 1. Whether they were adequate for the purpose of taking a view in the disciplinary proceedings is another matter, but to say the relevant documents were not supplied is not correct. The High Court had attached great importance to the alleged admission of documents for the purpose of adjudication on 8.10.1992.

Though this ground was urged with great vehemence before the High Court, it is not disputed that what was accepted by the Enquiry Officer on 8.10.1992 was not any document but list of documents/books of accounts in the possession of respondent No. 1- employee. It has not been shown as to how the non-supply of this list caused any prejudice. The stand of the respondent was that additional documents had been entertained which plea the High Court had wrongly accepted. As noted above no additional document was brought on record, and it was the list. On that score, the High Court's view is clearly untenable."

56. In this background, when the enquiry report dated 07.05.2012 is perused, it would disclose that in order to establish the charges leveled against petitioner, the Corporation had examined one witness as M.W.1 and through him, 31 documents have been marked as Ex.M- 1 to M-31. The first charge against the petitioner is that he is incapable to hold the post of 'Assistant Sales Officer' and on account of his inefficiency and he had caused indirect loss to the Corporation. Said allegation has been denied by the petitioner and in his reply dated 16.02.2012-Annexure-AN, he

has stated at paragraph 1(c) with regard to shortage of sarees worth Rs.18,049.30 ps. contending that Corporation had blindly passed an order to recover the part of Rs.9,024.65 ps. (value of shortage) from his salary and learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29683/1992 had ordered not to recover the said amount and had accordingly disposed of the writ petition. He has also further stated in his reply at paragraph 1(d) to the first charge contending that shortage of stock worth Rs.4,103/- had noticed while he was working at Devatha Market show room though not attributable to him, he did not admit the right of Corporation to recover the said amount, yet he did not challenge it and petitioner has contended that same cannot be construed as misconduct. The fact remains that he did not challenge the said order of recovery. In other words, petitioner had understood the allegations made against him by the Corporation and also the documents relied upon by the Corporation, which was delved upon by the petitioner himself in his detailed reply at paragraph 1(a) to 1(e) and as such, learned Single Judge could not have arrived at a conclusion that charge is vague. In fact, Corporation had imposed minor penalty of

"censure" by order dated 26.06.1993, receipt of which is admitted by the petitioner in his reply dated 16.02.2012 submitted to the show cause notice vide paragraph 1(e). Likewise, in respect of each of the charges as leveled by the Corporation against petitioner, it was sought to be substantiated by the Corporation by relying upon the statement of witness M.W.1 through whom Exs.M-1 to M.31 came to be marked, which was also duly replied by the petitioner in his reply and being conscious of this fact, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that charges leveled against him are vague.

57. The learned Single Judge vide paragraph 21 has held that charges leveled against petitioner are vague and thereby petitioner had been deprived of his right to put forth substantial defence to prove his innocence vis-à-vis with reference to records namely, show cause notice dated 14.02.2005. The learned Single Judge in general has found the charges are vague and in particular, Charges No.5 and 7 by way of illustration/example. Hence, we have considered these two charges to examine as to whether those charges are vague, consequentially the petitioner

had been deprived of his right to put forth his defence resulting in violation of principles of natural justice and on the basis of such vague charges a finding had been recorded by the EO."

19. The Division Bench has also found that the

employee never contended that he was not issued with the

necessary documents. The Division Bench, on examination of

the material on record, has also concluded that the employee,

being conscious of the imputation of charges, had replied to

the charges and cross examined the employer's witness;

therefore, the employee has submitted himself to the

jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer whose report concluded in

the dismissal order dated 11.07.2012. The Division Bench's

conclusion in this regard is extracted for immediate reference:

"63. Keeping these authoritative principles laid down by Apex Court in mind when facts on hand are examined, it would emerge that petitioner does not dispute the receipt of show cause notice - cum

- charge sheet, the affidavit of the Corporation witness i.e., M.W.1 filed specifying the details of each charge and reply submitted by him to the

charge sheet and cross examination of M.W.1 (partially). Petitioner has never contended that on account of vagueness in the allegations/imputations, he is unable to defend himself effectively. On the other hand, being conscious of the imputation of charges, he has replied to the same, cross examined the Corporation witness and thereby submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the EO without any protest. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that charges leveled against petitioner either being vague, unclear or same being without any supporting documents. Hence, finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in that regard have to be necessarily held as contrary to the facts on hand."

20. Further, it is seen from the records that during the

pendency of the writ appeal No.3137/2012, the employer has

served office order dated 14.10.2005 enclosing list of charges,

statement of imputations, list of witnesses and the list of

documents. The employer contends that these documents

are served on the employee through the office boy under

acknowledgment by the employee in writing. The employer

relies upon certain documents to bolster submissions in this

regard.

21. In the light of the aforesaid conclusions by the

Division Bench and a consequential remand for fresh

proceedings from the stage of cross examination of the

employer's witness, the question for consideration would be

whether it is open to the employee to contend either that the

charges are vague or imprecise or that the necessary

documents were not furnished to the employee by the

employer. It is undisputed that the employee's SLP before the

Hon'ble Apex Court is dismissed and the Divisions Bench's

order has attained finality.

22. This Court, with the authoritative pronouncement

in W.A No.6359/2017 that has attained finality with the

disposal of the SLP, is of the considered view that it was not

open to the employee to contend that the charges were vague

and imprecise, and Sri. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat could not

have opined that the enquiry, which was consequent to a

consensus submission made before this Court in W.P.

No.53029/2018, was based on vague, imprecise and unclear

imputations. Further, in view of the Division Bench

conclusion as found in paragraph-63, this Court is of the

further considered view that the employee could not have

contended, nor Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat could have

concluded, that the employer has not furnished with

necessary documents under the KSIC Rules. The first

question is answered in the negative.

23. The employee is terminated from service by the

employer by its order dated 06.08.2018, and this order is

challenged in W.P. No. 53029/2018, the last of the writ

proceedings prior to the present writ proceedings. In this writ

petition in W.P No. 53029/2018 both the employer and

employee have submitted that the enquiry proceedings may

be reinstated and have agreed for appointment of Sri Kukkeje

Ramakrishna Bhat as the enquiry officer. But the

termination order dated 06.08.2018 is not specifically set-

aside or quashed. This Court's order dated 17.12.2019 in

W.P No. 53029/2018 is silent in this regard, and can it be

readily inferred that the termination order dated 06.08.2018

is not set-aside.

24. This begs the question whether departmental

proceedings would be maintainable against an employee who

is terminated from service, and the answer, in the considered

opinion of this Court, must be a definite no lest there be an

irreconcilable incongruity. It cannot be that enquiry is

ordered on a consensus between the employer and employee

with the termination order being in force. Resultantly, this

Court must opine that there must be deemed quashing of the

termination order dated 06.08.2018.

25. There must be a final adjudication of the

employee's grievance that he is unlawfully terminated from

service and he is being victimized, and such adjudication can

only be in accordance with the procedure contemplated under

the KSIC Rules. Therefore, the employer must reinstate the

enquiry proceedings with the appointment of an enquiry

officer and the enquiry officer must complete the enquiry in

an expedited manner within a timeframe.

26. There could be some controversy about whether

statement of imputation, list of witnesses and list of

documents, a requirement under the KSIC Rules, is served on

the employee. But after the impugned enquiry report, the

employer has admittedly served the statement of imputation

on the employee on 17.02.2020 and the earlier statement of

imputation and list of documents are part of the record.

Therefore, the employee cannot, notwithstanding the

observation by the Division Bench in W.A. No.6359/2017

about the petitioner's participation in the enquiry proceedings

as of that date, now contend that charges are vague or not

specific or that he is not served with the documents. Further,

the employee has not participated in the enquiry proceedings

after the order of the Division Bench in W.A No. 6359/2017.

Therefore, the employee must have the opportunity to file a

detailed reply. Furthermore, the question of employee's right

to monetary relief must be subject to the outcome of the

disciplinary enquiry proceedings.

27. For the reasons discussed, the employee's

challenge to the observation in the enquiry Report would not

survive for consideration and both the writ petitions stand

disposed of by the following order, and before concluding, this

Court must express the hope that both the employer and

employee will not give room for further precipitation.

ORDER

[a] The writ petitions stand disposed of

declaring that the conclusion by Sri Kukkaje

Ramakrishna Bhat on the charges being vague

and imprecise and that the employee is not

furnished with the records are contrary to the

findings in the order of the Division bench in W.A

No.6359/2017.

[b] The employer shall appoint an Enquiry

Officer within three [3] weeks from the date of the

receipt of a certified Copy of this order, and the

enquiry officer shall conclude the enquiry

proceedings expeditiously and in any event within

a period of two [2] months from the date of his

appointment. The employee shall co-operate and

assist in such conclusion.

[c] The employee shall be at liberty to file

response to the charges as referred to in the

statement of allegations communicated by the

employer on 17.02.2020 [which is annexed as

Annexure-R to the writ petition in WP

No.5559/2020], and

[d] The employee's claim for monetary

benefits shall be subject to the outcome of the

aforesaid disciplinary proceedings.

SD/-

JUDGE

SA