Karnataka High Court
T R Srinatah vs The Chairman on 2 August, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
WP No. 50964 of 2012
C/W WP No. 35645 of 2012
WP No. 35646 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 50964 OF 2012 (S-RES) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 35645 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO. 35646 OF 2012
IN WP NO. 50964/2012:
BETWEEN:
SRI. V.R.SOMWANSHI S/O. RAMRAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.249, "INDIRA NIVAS",
NEAR BASAVA TEMPLE,
BASHETTIHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DODDAALLAPUR-561 203,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJA GOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF
DHARWAD
Date: 2024.08.14 KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN PRODUCTS LTD.,
10:40:44 +0530
A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
POST BOX NO.2479, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
BANGALORE-560 024.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN PRODUCTS LTD.,
A GOVENMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
POST BOX NO. 2479, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
BANGALORE-560024.
3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
WP No. 50964 of 2012
C/W WP No. 35645 of 2012
WP No. 35646 of 2012
KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN PRODUCTS LTD.,
A GOVENMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
POST BOX NO. 2479, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
BANGALORE-560024, BY ITS MEMBER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA M., ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO,
QUASH THE ORDER OF TERMINATION ORDER DATED 25.1.06
VIDE ANNX-H PASSED BY THE R2 HEREIN
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.3.07 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE
ANNX-A4; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.5.07 PASSED BY R2
VIDE ANNX-A6; QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
29.6.07 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNX-A7
QUASH THE MINUTES OF THE CORPORATION MEETING
NO.201 DATED 21.11.11 OF THE R3 VIDE ANNX-A14.
IN WP NO. 35645/2012
BETWEEN:
T R SRINATH
S/O. LATE T N RAMAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
EARLIER WORKING AS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN
PRODUCTS LIMITED, DODDABALLAPURA UNIT,
SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE,
AND R/A NO.2479, BELLARY ROAD,
HEBBAL BANGALORE-560024.
..PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJA GOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
WP No. 50964 of 2012
C/W WP No. 35645 of 2012
WP No. 35646 of 2012
PRODUCTS LIMITED,
P.B.NO.2479, BELLARY ROAD,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560024.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN
PRODUCTS LIMITED, P.B.NO.2479,
BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
BANGALORE-560024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA M., ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.1.2006 & 25/27-01-07 UNDER
ANN-H AND N TO THE WP PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY
AUTHORITY & ORDER DATED 03.1.2012 PASSED BY THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER
BY COMMUNICATION DATED 3.1.12 UNDER ANN-Q TO THE WP
BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI & GRANT
ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
IN WP NO. 35646/2012:
BETWEEN:
R. RAMESH RAO S/O. S. RAMADAS,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
EARLIER WORKING AS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN
PRODUCTS LIMTIED, MYSORE UNIT,
SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
FROM SERVICE, & R/A FLAT NO.1,
VISHAL APARTMENTS, NO.21,
MODEL HOUSE STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560024.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJA GOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
WP No. 50964 of 2012
C/W WP No. 35645 of 2012
WP No. 35646 of 2012
SRI. S.V.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORN
PRODUCTS LIMITED, P.B.NO.2479,
BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
BANGALORE-560024.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNAAKA STATE AGRO CORN
PRODUCTS LIMITED, P.B.NO.2479,
BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
BANGALORE-560024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA M., ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO,
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.1.2006 PASSED BY THE
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IN NO.KSACPL/MD/2005-06/3650 (
UNDER ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION); ORDER DATED
25/27.1.2007 PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IN
NO.KSACP/ADM/2854/06-07 (UNDER ANNX-R TO THE WRIT
PETITION; AND ORDER DATED 3.1.2012 NO.KSACP/
ADALITHANIRVAHANE /1240/2011-12 PASSED BY THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY (UNDER ANNX-T TO THE WRIT
PETITION) BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI & DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BY ISSUE OF A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO REINSTATE THE
PETITIONER INTO SERVICE FORTHWITH WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING PAYMENT OF ALL
BACK WAGES AND INCIDENTAL SERVICE BENEFITS THAT
FLOW FROM QUASHING OF ANNEXURES-K, R & T AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
WP No. 50964 of 2012
C/W WP No. 35645 of 2012
WP No. 35646 of 2012
ORDER
The petitioners have called in question the orders of
the Disciplinary, Appellate Authorities and the orders of
forfeiture, and one of the petitioners has also called in
question show cause notices/ orders issued for forfeiture of
certain alleged losses causes to M/s Karnataka State Agro
Corn Products Limited [the Corporation]. The details of these
impugned orders/ show cause notices are as follows:
Details of Details of the orders Details of the Details of the
the writ of the disciplinary show cause orders of
petition and appellate notices for forfeiture
authorities forfeiture
W.P.No. (i) Termination (i) Show cause The Order
order No. notice bearing No.
50964/2012 KSACPL/ MD/ bearing No. KSACP/ADM/44
2005/ 06/3649 KSACP/ADM
1/07-08 dated
[Sri.V.R. dated 25.01.2006 /3261/06-07
passed by the dated 28.05.2007
Somvanshi] Disciplinary 20.03.2007 (Annexure-AF)
Authority [Annexure
[Annexure-H]. AD]
(ii) The minutes of (ii) Show
the Corporation cause
Meeting No.201 notice
dated 21.11.2011 bearing No.
passed by the KSACP/ADM
Appellate /SC/697/07
Authority -08 dated
[Annexure-AP] 29.06.2007
[Annexure-
AG]
W.P.No. (i) Order dated The show The order dated
25.01.2006 cause notice 25/27.01.2007
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
35646/2012 passed by the for forfeiture is in No.
Disciplinary not impugned. KSACP/ADM/28
[R.Ramesh Authority in No. 54/06-07
Rao] KSACPL/MD/200
(Annexure-R)
5-06/ 3650
(Annexure-K)
(ii) Order dated
03.01.2012 No
KSACP/ Adalitha
Nirvahane/1240/
2011-12 passed
by the Appellate
Authority
(Annexure-T)
W.P.No. (i) Order dated The show (i)The order
25.01.2006 cause notice dated 25/27-01-
35645/2012 passed by the for forfeiture is 2007 passed by
Disciplinary
not impugned. the Disciplinary
[Sri. TR Authority in No.
KSACPL/MD/200 Authority in No.
Srinath]
5-06/365 (under KSACP/ADM/28
Annexure-H to the 55/06-07
Writ petition). [Annexure-N]
(ii) Order dated
03.01.2012 No.
KSACP/Adalitha
Nirvahane/1241/
2011-12
[Annexure-Q].
A brief statement of facts:
2. The petitioners were employed with the
Corporation as Unit Heads. The Corporation, a State
Government Undertaking incorporated for production and
supply of supplementary/nutritious food for women in the
family way and children below the age of six years, has
established its food processing units in places such as
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Bengaluru, Belgaum, Mysuru, Chitradurga, Raichur and
Doddaballapur. The Corporation contends that Food
Specialists such as the petitioners are appointed as Unit
Heads to oversee the function of these units and that given
the expertise of these Food Specialists/ Unit Heads, they are
vested with the full responsibility of ensuring quality of the
supplemental and nutritious food to be provided to the
women and children.
2.1 The Union Government's Integrated Child
Development Scheme [ICDS] is also implemented through
the Corporation. This scheme is inter alia to provide
nutritious and fortified food [energy food/energy food
mixes] to the beneficiaries through the concerned
Anganwadi Centers. The Corporation has delivered wheat
procured from Public Distribution System [PDS] to private
millers to supply wheat rava to Anganwadi Centers. The
Corporation contends that the Unit Heads, who were
required to invite tenders from private millers, finalize
contracts for supply of PDS Wheat and receive wheat rava,
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
were also required to ensure quality and then supply the
same to the Anganwadi Centers.
2.2 The State Government has appointed an Officer
of the Indian Administrative Services Cadre [Sri R. B.
Agwane] to investigate the reasons for complaints about
lack of quality in the wheat rava supplied to the Anganwadi
centers and the delay in supply as well. Sri R. B. Agwane
has filed his report concluding that the Corporation has
failed to supply soya fortified rava and has caused loss to
the State Government to an extent of Rs.1.29 crores. Sri.
R. B. Agwane's conclusions, while emphasizing that an
enquiry would be necessary in order to examine the
possibility of wheat being sold in the open market by
private traders to make profits without processing the same
particularly, read as under.
The Karnataka State Agro Corn Products limited,
Bangalore has failed to supply Soya fortified rava to
the extent of 9.956 MTs and therefore all the Child
Development project Officers have purchased plain
rava of 6.397 MTs at the price ranging from Rs 9.50
to Rs 15.25 per kg, presuming they have paid an
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
average price of Rs 12.50 per kg. Then they have
incurred an expenditure of Rs 8 crores. The cost of
6397 MTs Rava at Karnataka State Agro Corn
Products limited price of soya fortified rava @ Rs
10,500 per MT would be (6397 X 10,500 = 6.71
crores) and therefore it is concluded that had the
Karnataka State Agro Corn Products limited supplied
all the committed quantity at Rs. 10.50 per kg the
excess Rs 1.29 crores would not have been incurred
by the Child Development project Officer's. Therefore,
the Karnataka State Agro Corn Products limited is
responsible for this loss caused to the Government.
3. The Corporation, acting upon Sri R.B.
Agwane's report, has appointed Sri N.S. Sangolli, a retired
District Judge, as an Inquiry Officer to investigate into the
possibilities of PDS wheat being sold in the open market to
make profits. This Court must observe that the
contemplated investigation was into [i] the total quantity of
wheat allotted to and lifted by the Corporation between the
years 1993-1994 and 1996-1997, [ii] the total quantity of
wheat issued to the private traders by the Corporation and
the quantity lifted by them, quantity of wheat supplied by
the private mills to the Corporation and the delay therein,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
and [iii] the quantity of energy food/energy food mixes
supplied by the Corporation under the ICDS projects.
4. Sri N.S. Sangolli has filed his Report
detailing his visits to the Corporation's processing units at
Mysuru, Chitradurga, Doddaballapur and Raichur and his
interaction with the personnel. Sri N.S. Sangolli's final
conclusions in his Report are extracted hereafter, and he
has also opined that the beneficiaries of the ICDS scheme
are denied benefits, despite the public exchequer being
expanded for those purposes, because of misunderstanding
between the supplier and the receiver. The conclusion
referred to above reads as under:
Thus, it is clear from the discussions made above with
reference to the material available there is no proper
execution of the scheme and that there is mis-use of
PDS Wheat particularly by the General Manager and
no proper financial control was exercised by Finance
Manager in the Head Office and Unit Heads at each
unit particularly Unit Head of Chitradurga at the
relevant time. I have no hesitation here to opine that
this sort of mishandling and mismanagement of
allotment, lifting and using the PDS wheat has forced
certain Zilla Panchayats to purchase rava at higher
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
rates particularly, Mysore so that the object of the
Scheme is achieved and the beneficiaries, i.e.,
Children, pregnant women, etc., are supplied Energy
Food and Food Mixes. But as stated above it is
General Manager and Finance Manager in the Head
Office during that period and Unit heads of all the
units generally and Unit head of Chitradurga unit
during that period according to me are the cause for
the failure of the scheme so to say."
5. These are the preliminary exercises
undertaken by the State Government and the Corporation
before the petitioners are served with the corresponding
articles of charges. The details of the charges served on the
petitioners1 for misconduct are as follows. The general
imputation of misconduct is dishonesty in connection with
the business of the Corporation, willful insubordination,
negligence or neglect of duties, disobedience of
orders/instruction issued by the management, breach of
Service Rules and causing huge financial loss to the
Corporation.
1 The petitioners, whenever referred individually, are referred to by their
names for reasons of convenience
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
The details of the charges against The conclusions of the Inquiry
the petitioner in Officer [IO]
W.P.No.50964/2012 - Sri. V.R.
Somwanshi [Annexure G]
[Annexure E]
As regards Charge No.1 [charge
1(a)-(c)]
(a) The petitioner has failed to
achieve optimum utilization
of the unit's capacity by
deliberately concealing the
inhouse capacity for
conversion of wheat into
wheat rava and the history
of such utilization before the
committee while awarding
contracts to private millers.
These charges are not proved
as there is no evidence.
(b) The petitioner has failed to
devise management of
production schedules to meet
the requirement of
Department of Women and
Child and therefore
Contributing to the loss of
Rs.1.29 crores.
(c) The petitioner has failed to
maintain quality of
production
The petitioner has admitted in
his cross examination that he
As regards Charges 2(a) to (c): has accepted wheat rava 20
days prior to the date M/s.
Brundavan Flour Mills lifted
(a) The petitioner has not PDS Wheat and that the
observed proper procedures petitioner has also admitted
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
in engaging private milers for that he has accepted 2.29
converting wheat into wheat MTS of Wheat Rava 30 days
rava and in allowing M/s. beyond the date this Flour
Brundavan Flour Mills
mill lifted wheat.
Bengaluru to supply 39.730
MTS of wheat rava 20 days
prior to lifting of PDS wheat
in violation of the directives of
The petitioner neither
the Corporation.
maintained the record of
quantity of PDS Wheat lifted
(b) In accepting 2.29 MTS of by the private millers nor
wheat rava after a delay of maintained proper record of
more 30 days from the date receipt of Wheat Rava from
of supply of the PDS wheat. the private millers.
(c) Ignoring corporation's
interests in receiving wheat The petitioner's admission
rava supplies from M/s. should suffice and the
Brundavana Flour Mills by not petitioner's explanation for
ensuring quality and timely
receiving 2.29 mts wheat
delivery.
rava beyond 30 days viz.,
"Controlled Weighment of the
last consignment" is not
persuaded to take a different
view.
Thus, charges 2(a), 2(b) and
2(c) require to be held as
proved.
(d) The petitioner has suppressed This charge is not proved as
information about the exact there is no evidence.
time of issue of wheat to the
private millers and the time of
supply of wheat rava by
these private millers.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Charge 3 and 4
These charges are not proved
as there is no evidence.
The petitioner has knowingly and
willingly failed to ensure the
implementation of the ICDS
Scheme bringing disrepute to
corporation and mishandling the
responsibilities as the Unit Head of
Doddaballapur.
6. The Disciplinary Authority, while
considering the Inquiry Officer's Report and the material
introduced in evidence, has opined the following:
[A] that the IO has stuck to the material placed
on record and the petitioner has neither
stated why certain documents [marked as
Annexure D series] are relevant and useful to
him nor has he led any evidence in
examination -in-chief to disprove charges.
[B] that the petitioner has not made any efforts
to deny the contents in Ex M 1 [Sri NS
Sangolli's Report] and Ex M2 [Sri. RB
Agwane's Report] as being incorrect.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
[C] that Sri. NS Sangolli has opined that even
the private millers engaged have benefited
from the PDS Wheat lifted by them from the
Corporation for conversion into wheat rava
and this has resulted in the Corporation
failing to honor its commitment to supply
wheat rava to the concerned ICDS center
within the agreed time ultimately compelling
the Zilla Panchayats to make purchases from
the open market by paying extra money and
thereby incurring losses.
7. The Disciplinary Authority, though
instances of misappropriation, embezzlement and negligence
are not part of the imputations in the article of charges, has
referred to various instances misappropriation and
embezzlement of funds and negligence resulting in the
failure of the Government's Scheme for benefit of the less
fortunate class of people resulting with the punishment of
termination from the services.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
The details of the charges The conclusions of the Inquiry
against the petitioner in Officer [IO]
W.P.No.35645/2012 - Sri T R
Srinath [Enquiry Report in Annexure D]
[Charge Sheet in Annexure A]
These Charges framed against
this petitioner are proved on the
As regards Charge No.1 basis of the Sri NS Sangolli's
[charge 1(a)-(c)] Report in Ex M Ex- 1. The findings
of the IO are as follows:
(a) The petitioner has failed
to achieve optimum
utilization of the unit's • The petitioner, as seen in
capacity by deliberately data of PDS Wheat lifted
concealing the inhouse and received [Annexures
capacity for conversion A1 and A2] during the
of wheat into wheat years 1994-95 and 1995-
rava and the history of 1996], has not maintained
such utilization before consistency or correlation
the committee while between allotment and
avoiding contracts to lifting of PDS Wheat from
private millers. Food Corporation of
India's Godown by private
millers and receipt of
wheat rava is in 100:50
ratio.
(b) The petitioner has failed
to devise and manage
production schedules to • The Mysore Unit has not
meet the requirement of followed proper
Department of Women procedures in connection
and Child and with allotment of PDS
Contributing to the loss Wheat to the unit, lifting of
of Rs.1.29 crores. PDS Wheat by private
millers and supply of
Wheat Rava back to the
(c) The petitioner has unit.
failed to maintain
quality of production.
• The petitioner, who has
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
As regards Charges 2(a) to got himself examined as
(d): his defense witness, has
admitted in his cross
examination that there
was delay of 25 days and
(a) The petitioner has not more in respect of
observed proper acceptance of 8.262 MTS
procedures in engaging out of the total quantity of
private millers for 225 MTS of wheat rava
converting PDS wheat from M/s Manjunatha
into wheat rava and Flour Mills.
allowing north
Karnataka Flour mills to
lift wheat from godowns • The petitioner has himself
at places other than the contended that acceptance
location. of delayed materials was
within his powers.
(b) The petitioner has
accepted supplies of • The petitioner has failed in
15.645 MTS of Wheat achieving of the object of
Rava from M/s Nandi the ICDS Scheme.
Roller Flour Mills and
22.845 MTS of Wheat These charges leveled against
Rava from Manjunatha the petitioner are proved.
Flour Mills which were
delayed beyond a
period of 25 days and
22 days respectively.
(c) The petitioner has
ignored the interest of
the corporation in
receiving the supplies of
wheat rava from the
millers by not ensuring
quality and timely
delivery.
(d) The petitioner has
suppressed the
information about the
exact time of issue of
wheat to the private
millers and the time of
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
supply of wheat rava by
these private millers.
Charge 3 and 4
The petitioner has knowingly
and willingly failed to ensure
the implementation of the
ICDS Scheme bringing
disrepute to corporation,
mishandling the
responsibilities as the Head
of the Weaning Food Unit
Mysore.
8. The Disciplinary Authority has opined that
there is no perversity in the IO relying upon the documents
produced by the Corporation and the petitioner has not
stated why certain documents [Annexure D series] marked
from his side are relevant and useful to him nor has he led
any evidence in examination-in-chief to disprove charges;
that he has not asserted that contents in Sri N.S. Sangolli's
Report and Sri. RB Agwane's Report are factually incorrect.
The Disciplinary Authority has further opined that though
the management's witness has been cross-examined at
length, the veracity of evidence adduced on behalf of the
management remains unshaken. Ultimately, the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Disciplinary Authority, while opining that the petitioner's
mismanagement of allotment of lifting the PDS Wheat and
untimely delivery of Wheat Rava has compelled the ZIlla
Panchayats secure the same at higher rates in Mysore has
caused loss to the Corporation has imposed the punishment
of termination from services.
The details of the charges The conclusions of the Enquiry
against the petitioner in Officer [IO]
W.P.No.35646/2012 - Sri R.
Ramesh Rao [Enquiry Report in Annexure F]
[Charge Sheet in Annexure C]
As regards Charge No.1 The IO, after a detailed reference
[charge 1(a)-(c)] to Sri. N.S. Sangolli's report and
the petitioner's cross examination,
has concluded that all the
(a) The petitioner has failed charges leveled against the
to achieve optimum petitioner are proved because of
utilization of the unit's the following.
capacity by deliberately
concealing the inhouse
capacity for conversion
of wheat into wheat • The petitioner has not
rava and the history of maintained documents in the
such utilization before unit to show the capacity of
the committee while the unit for the conversion of
awarding contracts to wheat into wheat rava. This
private millers. shows that the petitioner has
not considered the optimum
capacity of his unit before
(b) The petitioner's failure awarding contracts to private
to manage production millers and not followed the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
schedules to meet the procedure in engaging the
requirement of private millers.
Department of Women
and Child and
Contributing to the loss • Sri. NS Sangolli's report and
of Rs.1.29 crores. certain data show that ratio
(c) The petitioner's failure of the wheat is to wheat rava
in maintaining the supplied by millers is in
quality of production 100:50 but it should have
As regards Charges 2(a) to (d): been 100:100.
• The petitioner has not carried
out proper procedures to
(a) The petitioner has not engage private millers.
observed proper
procedure in engaging • Since the petitioner has not
private millers for maintained the dates of
converting wheat into supply of Wheat Rava from
wheat rava and has the private traders, some
allowed the lifting of items of supplies were found
PDS Wheat by private to be delayed by 20 to 60
millers without any days and thereby affecting
authority and the quality of supplies.
transferred it to the
other units of the
Corporation without
following the guidelines
laid down by the
Corporation.
(b) The petitioner has
neither maintained the
records of the quantity
of PDS Wheat lifted by
the private millers nor
maintained proper
record on receipts of
wheat rava from the
private millers more
particularly from M/s
Srinivasa Industries,
Raichur and M/s North
Karnataka Roller Flour
Mill.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
(c) The petitioner has
delayed supplies of 20
MTS of Wheat Rava
from M/s Srinivasa
Industries, Raichur and
150 MTS of Wheat Rava
from M/s North
Karnataka Roller Flour
Mill, Belgaum by a
delay of 20 days and
60 days respectively
over the acceptable
timeline.
(d) The petitioner has
ignored the
Corporation's interest in
receiving the supplies of
wheat rava from the
millers by not ensuring
quality and timely
delivery.
(e) The petitioner has not
suppressed information
about the exact time of
issue of wheat to the
private millers and the
time of supply of wheat
rava by these private
millers.
As Regards Charge 3,4 and 5:
Charge 3:
The petitioner has lifted
2046.236 MTS of Wheat from
Food Corporation of India and
sent the same to units at
Doddaballpur and Mysore
without proper authorization
and thereby causing financial
losses to the company and in
contravention to the directives
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
of the Corporation issued in
March 1996.
Charge 4 and 5:
The petitioner is knowingly
and willingly failed to ensure
the implementation of the ICDS
Scheme bringing disrepute to
corporation and has
mishandled the responsibility
entrusted to you as the Unit
Head for the Weaning Food
Unit at Chitradurga and are
indirectly responsible for the
financial losses.
9. The Disciplinary Authority has opined,
referring to the instances of by M/s Srinivasa Industries,
Raichur and M/s North Karnataka Roller Flour Mill lifting
wheat as mentioned in Sri. NS Sangolli's report, that the
petitioner has not followed proper procedures in engaging
private millers for converting wheat into wheat rava. As
regards the non-consideration of the capacity of the unit
before awarding contracts to the private millers, the
Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the IO's findings.
Further, the Disciplinary Authority, as in the case of the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
other two instances, has considered various instances of the
petitioner's misappropriation and embezzlement of funds
before imposing punishment. This petitioner is also imposed
with the punishment of termination from the services.
10. The petitioner in W.P.No.50964/2012 [Sri
V. R. Somwanshi]2 has impugned the Disciplinary
Authority's order dated 25.01.2006 as also the Appellate
Authority's order dated 20.03.2007 in W.P.No.15650/2006
apart from the show cause notices/ and orders issued for
forfeiture of certain losses to the corporation because of his
alleged failures in supply of soya milk. This
W.P.No.15650/2006 is disposed of on 20.09.2011 quashing
the Appellate Authority's order dated 20.03.2007 restoring
the matter to the Appellate Authority observing that this
authority shall consider the grounds of appeal and pass just
orders. This Court must record that it is clarified that the
appellate authority must ascertain whether the petitioner is
2 The petitioners, whenever referred individually, are referred to by their
names for reasons of convenience
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
directly involved in the financial irregularities. This Court's
order in this regard reads as under:
"In that view of the matter, it is ordered, the order of the
appellate authority is quashed and the matter is
remitted to the appellate authority who shall take into
consideration the ground of appeal and pass
appropriate orders. It is also made clear, whether the
petitioner is directly involved in financial irregularity or
not is a matter to be ascertained by the appellate
authority."
11. Sri V.R. Somwanshi has carried this order
in intra court appeal in W.A.No.17026/2011 and during its
pendency, the appellate authority has disposed of the appeal
by its order dated 03.01.2012. The Division Bench in view of
this order dated 03.01.2012 has disposed of the writ appeal
in W.A.No.17026/2011 on 24.09.2012 observing that the
appeal is rendered infructuous and reserving liberty to
challenge such order leaving open all contentions to be
considered.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
12. The Appellate Authority, while considering
the question whether Sri. V.R. Somwanshi is responsible for
the financial irregularities, has re-iterated the earlier
conclusion that the Unit Heads of concerned/DGM - Finance
must be held responsible for the loss caused to the
Government in the implementation of ICDS project; that the
Unit Heads had the responsibility to ensure delivery of
products as prescribed by the Government and according to
the standards prescribed, and because Sri V.R. Somwanshi,
as a Unit Head, has not conformed to the specifications, he
must be held liable for the financial losses caused to the
Corporation. The Appellate Authority has also referred to
the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority that the
punishment of termination from service is justified not only
because of the present charges but also instances of earlier
misappropriation and embezzlement.
13. The petitioners in W.P.No.35645/2012 and
W.P. No. 35646/2012 [Sri T.R. Srinath and Sri R Ramesh
Rao respectively] have also filed their corresponding writ
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
petitions in W.P.No.17095/2007 and 17092/2007
impugning the show cause notices issued to them and the
Disciplinary Authority's orders. These writ petitions are
disposed of by a common order dated 18.02.2011, and once
again remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority to
dispose of the appeal filed by them in accordance with the
grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. The petitioners
have carried this common order in intra court appeals in
W.A.No.18049/2011 and 18045/2011. The petitioners have
filed Memo/s for withdrawal placing on record that the
Appellate Authority has passed orders in the month of
January 2012 and that they may be given liberty to call in
question such orders. The afore writ appeals are disposed of
on 21.06.2012 in view of the memo filed by them and
reserving liberty.
14. The Appellate authority has disposed of
these petitioners' appeals with conclusions which read as
follows:
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
The Dismissal from services of the company is the
appropriate penalty for the proved charges of
misconduct. The disciplinary authority has taken a
lenient view and also to meet the end of justice
used the word 'termination' which was upheld by
the Appellate Authority. More so, the word
'termination' is as good as dismissal. Literally,
termination means "to bring or to come to an end
or limit". Dismissal means to send or put away.
In both cases the service of an employee is put to
an end. So considering the grounds urged by Sri
T.R. Srinath and Sri Ramesh Rao are to be
dismissed from services under 8.3 (vii) of the
Service Rules of KSACL.
15. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court must
interfere with the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities'
orders because [i] the charges against the petitioners are
vague and they have not been given fair opportunity; [ii]
there is no evidence against the petitioners to opine that the
charges [as vague as they are] are proved; [iii] the
Disciplinary Authority has travelled beyond the charges in
opining that the imputations of financial and other
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
irregularities amounting to misconduct are proved because
of certain antecedent allegations of misappropriation and
embezzlement though they are not mentioned in the
charges; [iv] the Corporation's Service Rules do not even
contemplate termination from service.
16. Sri P.S. Rajagopal elaborates on these
grounds as follows.
On charges against the petitioners being general in
nature and vague:
16.1 The imputations against the petitioners are
such as that they have failed to achieve Optimum utilization
of inhouse capacity, that they failed to devise and manage
production schedules, and that they have not observed
proper procedure in engaging private millers for converting
wheat into wheat rava. In the case of Sri. V R Somwanshi
the first of the afore allegations is said not to be proved but
in the case of Sri R. Ramesh Rao and Sri T R Srinath,
crucially based on the very same evidence, it is opined that
the allegations are proved.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
16.2 According to the Corporation, the proven
charges against Sri V.R. Somvanshi are that he received
2.29 mts of wheat rava even before wheat was supplied and
a certain other quantity of wheat rava was received beyond
the prescribed period and that he has not followed the
Guidelines in engaging the services of private millers.
However, the charges do not even mention the details of the
procedure that he was required to follow. The Corporation
has referred to its directives in the matter of engaging
private millers, for supply of wheat and for receipt of wheat
rava but these directives are not mentioned in the charges.
16.3 In the case of Sri R Ramesh Rao and Sri
T.R. Srinath the other imputations are that they have not
observed proper procedure in engaging private millers, that
wheat is delivered to private millers without due
authorization and without following the Corporation's
Guidelines, that they have permitted certain private millers,
even outside their zones, to lift wheat without proper
records. Even as against these allegations, the relevant
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Guidelines are not mentioned in the charges and the
charges do not mention the quantities that these petitioners
have supplied without records.
16.4 The petitioners have been denied a fair
opportunity to know the specific charges against them
because the charges against them are completely silent
about the Directives/ Guidelines issued and the specific
instances where there is either delay in receiving wheat rava
or in allowing private millers to lift wheat, or in wheat rava
being delivered even before lifting wheat. The charges
against the petitioners should have been specific furnishing
all the necessary details to afford them a fair opportunity of
defending themselves against the imputations.
16.5 On the question of vagueness of charges, it
is settled law that a plain reading of the charges and the
statement of stipulations [if any], must show the exact
nature of the allegations. The requirement in law for
charges to be specific is embedded in the basic principle that
a reasonable and adequate opportunity must be extended to
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
the delinquent to defend himself/herself and if the
delinquent is not told clearly and definitely what the
allegations are against him, he/she cannot project defense
imagining the circumstances in which the allegations are
made. The Apex Court, in Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur
Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Another3 when
vague charges were made against a Bank official, has set
aside the subject orders reiterating the afore proposition on
definite charges affording a reasonable opportunity as
enunciated in its earlier decision in Surath Chandra
Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal4.
On lack of evidence to reasonably conclude that the
Charges against the petitioners are proved:
16.6 The corporation has examined Sri R. B.
Agwane and Sri N.S. Sangolli and marked their reports in
evidence. This is the only evidence placed on records.
However, Sri R.B. Agwane's report is not marked in its
entirety and the portion marked does not bear his signature.
3 [2011] 14 SCC 379
4 2009 (12) SCC 78
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
The report has certain annexures, and even those annexures
are not marked. Sri N.S. Sangolli's report is marked but
such report is based on interaction with certain persons at
the units, but the statements recorded during such
interaction are not placed on record.
16.7 The Inquiry Officer based on these
documents has concluded that the charges as against the
petitioners are proved because of reasons such as that they
have not undermined the ocular evidence or the efficacy of
the reports but has overlooked that the allegations related to
transactions done over a period of time and not
substantiated by any evidence. The conclusions against Sri
Ramesh Rao and Sri T R Srinath based on ratio in the
supply of wheat and receipt of wheat rava is presumptuous
and not backed by documents apart from being inconsistent.
16.8 As against Sri V.R. Somavamshi, the
Inquiry Officer, without any evidence, has opined that he
has not maintained any records and the petitioner has
admitted that he has received wheat rava beyond 30 days
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
and even before supplying wheat. Similarly, as regards the
imputations against Sri R. Ramesh Rao and Sri T.R. Srinath,
the reliance is only on Sri N.S. Sangolli's report and certain
data. The report, even if it could be relevant, should have
been supported by the ocular evidence of those who have
given statements, or in the least by furnishing and
producing the statements recorded during the relevant time.
16.9 Sri N.S. Sangolli has not specifically spoken
about the procedure that was required to be followed or the
records not maintained to indicate the alleged breach. The
Inquiry Officer, as in the case of Sri. V.R. Somwanshi even in
the case of these two persons, has opined that there is an
admission about receiving belatedly certain quantity of
wheat rava, but these observations are totally contrary to
the evidence on record as none of the three have admitted to
anything.
16.10 The settled law is that there must be
fairness in the conduct of the proceedings because such
fairness will be part of the principles of natural justice. In
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
the present case, only if all the relevant material to show the
prescribed procedures and the breach were brought on
record, it could be opined that the petitioners were given
opportunity and if these materials are not brought on
record, this Court must opine that the proceedings are not
in accordance with fair play.
As against the Disciplinary Authority going beyond the
Charges in opining that the imputations are proved.
16.11 The charges against the petitioners, though
vague, are because of certain imputations, but the
Disciplinary Authority has proceeded to opine that they
must suffer termination from service because of other
instances of wrong doing in procuring fortified food for
different schemes and because they have displayed a
consistent conduct of causing loss to the Corporation and
that it will not be in the Corporation's interest to continue
the petitioners' services. Irrefutably these other allegations
are completely outside the purview of the imputations made
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
against the petitioners as part of the article of charges
served on them.
16.12 The Disciplinary Authority, even if it could
have opined that the petitioners must suffer the extreme
punishment of termination from service [dismissal from
service], it should have been based only on the charges
served on them and not because of any allegation that is
extraneous to such charges. The Disciplinary Authority has
thus, traversed beyond the charges and the material placed
on record in opining that the petitioners must suffer
termination from service, and the Appellate Authority has
completely overlooked this aspect.
16.13 To underscore that the Disciplinary
Authority's decision cannot be on the basis of surmises and
presumption; that there must be acceptable proof [evidence]
of the imputations; that there must be fair in Inquiry
proceedings; that an Inquiry Officer cannot travel beyond
the records to opine that person is guilty and if the inquiry
officer thus go beyond the records, any disciplinary action
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
based is only illegal, reliance is placed upon the decision of
the Apex Court in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India
Insurance Company Limited5, while inviting this Court's
attention more specifically to paragraph 26 thereof.
On the orders for forfeiture and termination:
16.14 The Corporation has caused orders and
show cause notices to the petitioners alleging that, because
of their negligence and alleged violation of the respective
directors/guidelines, they have caused financial losses to
the Corporation and therefore, the salary, gratuity and
earned leave must be forfeited. The Service Rules do not
contemplate forfeiture and the Rules contemplate recovery
when there is proven financial loss either because of
negligence or breach of orders, but the Disciplinary
Authority in forfeiting the amount/s as indicated above has
imposed a punishment that is not contemplated under the
Service Rules.
5 2006 (4) SCC 713
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
16.15 As regards the petitioners' case that they
are essentially terminated from service and that termination
is not contemplated as penalties under the Corporation's
Service Rules, it is canvassed that the only punishments
that are contemplated is [a] dismissal from service, [b]
compulsory retirement, [c] reduction to a lower grade or post
or lower time scale or lower stage in time scale and [d]
recovery from pay the actual pecuniary loss caused by
negligence or breach6. It is also canvassed that the
termination from service is only when there is contractual
employment not otherwise7.
16.16 The decision of the Apex Court in Vijay
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others8 is relied
6 Apart from recovery of the losses caused, and imposing fines,
censuring and withholding increment.
7 Rule 8.3 explanations (vi) and (vii) of the Corporation's Service Rules:
(vi) Termination of services of an employee employed under an
agreement in accordance with the terms of such agreement.
(vii) Termination of an employees on administrative grounds other
than disciplinary measures as provided under the Rules, as the said
authority may specify, where no such provision specify, the
employees shall be paid 50% of the basic pay and dearness
allowances based on such amount
8 2012 (5) SCC 242
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
upon to buttress the petitioner's case that the disciplinary
proceedings are regulated and controlled by the statutory
rules, and therefore, the disciplinary authorities while
performing the quasi-judicial function, are not permitted to
ignore the statutory rules. The contention is that there
must be strict adherence to the Rules and any punishment
outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity and
cannot be enforced against the petitioner. The reliance is
on the following paragraph from this decision.
"15. Imposing the punishment for a proved delinquency
is regulated and controlled by the statutory rules.
Therefore, while performing the quasi-judicial functions,
the authority is not permitted to ignore the statutory
rules under which punishment is to be imposed. The
disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence
to the said rules. Thus, the order of punishment being
outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity
and cannot be enforced against the appellant."
17. Sri. M. Subramanya, the learned counsel
for the Corporation, submits that the petitions insofar as
they are filed challenging the Disciplinary Authority's orders
cannot be sustained, and if at all the petitioners could be
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
aggrieved, it could only be as against the Appellate
Authority's order dated 03.01.2012. The learned counsel
submits that when the petitioners first impugned the
Disciplinary Authority's orders before this Court in the
earlier writ proceedings, this Court has categorically opined
that the Disciplinary Authority's orders cannot be faulted
because of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, and
that this Court has also concluded that the petitioners have
been granted sufficient opportunities and there is no error in
the decision making process.
18. Sri. M..Subramanya argues that the
petitioners' have called in question this Court's orders in
their corresponding intra-court appeals, but these appeals
are disposed of because of the memo filed by the petitioners,
and such disposal does not in any manner dilute the
findings as regards the decision making process and the
merits of the Disciplinary Authority's order. The learned
Counsel also canvasses that the petitioners who have
participated in the inquiry proceedings without contending
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
that the charges are vague cannot now raise such ground
now, especially after the first round of litigation.
18.1 Sri. M. Subramanya next submits that each
of the petitioners has categorically admitted in the cross
examination that they did not have the authority to receive
wheat rava belatedly or to receive rava even before the
Millers are permitted to lift wheat. In this regard, the learned
counsel relies upon the following in the Disciplinary
Authority's order in the case of V.R. Somwanshi:
The charge sheet officer has admitted in his cross
examination that it is true that he accepted wheat
rawa 20 days prior to the lifting of wheat by
Brundhavan Flour Mills. He has accepted delayed
receipt exceeding 30 days over and above the
acceptable period.
Sri. V.R.Somavamshi has come out with truth in his
cross examination that he has accepted 2.29 metric
tons of wheat rawa after delay of 30 days from
Brundhavan Flour mills but the reason given by him
that it was controlled weighment of the last
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
consignment does not convince me to take a
different view.
Insofar as Sri R. Ramesh Rao and Sri T.R. Srinath, the
learned counsel canvasses that the Inquiry Officer, based
on the suggestions by these officers to the Corporation's
witnesses [and materials produced by these persons], has
opined that documents have not been maintained to show
the capacity of the units under their supervision, that the
dates of supply from private traders are not maintained and
the wheat rawa is received in different ratios though as per
the agreement dated 06.09.1996 the wheat rawa had to be
supplied in the ratio of 100:100.
18.2 Sri M.Subramanya submits that the Inquiry
Officer has considered evidence viz., the suggestions in the
cross examination of the witnesses, the documents produced
by the petitioners and the two reports. Therefore, it cannot
be gainsaid that the Inquiry Officer's opinion and the
Disciplinary Authority's orders are based on evidence. The
learned counsel proposes to rely upon the decision of the
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Apex Court in the State Of Haryana Vs Ratan Singh
reported in AIR 1977 SC 1512 to contend that the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 are not required
to be complied with while conducting an inquiry and that if
reasonable and credible material are brought on record, the
conclusions arrived at in the departmental proceedings
cannot be interfered with. The learned counsel emphasizes
the following exposition in the decision.
"4. It is well-settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict
and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence
Act, 1872 may not apply. All materials which are logically
probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no
allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable
nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental
authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful
in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow
what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Evidence
Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions
nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case-
law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The
essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of
extraneous materials or considerations and observance of
rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and
if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of
independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached,
such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be
held good."
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
18.3 The learned counsel also relies upon several
decisions of the Apex Court to contend that Courts will not
interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters unless it is
shown that the conclusions are clearly without evidence or
perverse, and that the Courts will not substitute its
conclusions either in the matter of credibility of evidence or
quantum of punishment, but there is no detailed reference
to these authorities in view of the fact that Sri. P.S.Rajagopal
does not dispute the propositions underscored by these
decisions.
19. In the light of the rival submissions, the
questions for consideration are as follows:
[a] Whether this Court must interfere the
Disciplinary/ Appellate Authorities' orders
on the grounds that [i] the charges against
the petitioners are vague and general, [ii]
the petitioners have not had reasonable
opportunity, and [iii] the conclusions are
not based on evidence.
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
[b] Whether the impugned orders are vitiated in
law because the Disciplinary/Appellate
Authorities have considered material and
circumstances that are extraneous to the
Charges served on the petitioners.
[c] Whether the petitioners are served with
penalty which is beyond the contemplation
of the Services Rules.
[d] Whether there is any justification for
interference with the decision to recover any
amount from the petitioners' salary and
gratuity/encashment of earned leave.
20. This Court, even before these questions are
considered, must examine whether these questions would be
open for consideration in view of the conclusions in the
earlier writ proceedings. The petitioners have impugned the
Disciplinary Authority's impugned orders in the first round
of litigation, and indeed each of these writ petitions are
disposed of with certain observations. These observations
are essentially in the context of the narrow band within
which the grievances against the conclusion of the
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
disciplinary proceedings are examined, and this Court has
opined that the petitioners have not been able to
demonstrate any fallacy in the decision-making process as
they are given sufficient opportunity.
20.1 However, this opinion has not remained the
last words on the controversy inasmuch as each of the
petitioners have called in question such opinion in their
corresponding intra court appeals but without the advantage
of interim order as against the limited relief of remand
granted by this Court calling upon the Appellant Authority
to examine their grievance that the Disciplinary Authority's
decision to terminate their services is despite the fact that
termination is not contemplated as a penalty under Rule 8 of
the Service Rules. As such, the Appellate Authority, during
the pendency of these intra court appeals, has examined
this grievance, and when it is brought to the notice of the
concerned Division Benches, either with a memo or
otherwise, the writ appeals are disposed of with liberty.
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
20.2 This Court must refer to the orders of the
concerned Division Bench in writ appeal in WA No.
17026/2011 [writ appeal by Sri V R Somawamshi], and this
order essentially reads as under:
According to the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2, this appeal has become
infructuous because pursuant to the appellant's
signature, the appellant authority has already
passed an order in the month of January 2012.
If it is so, we are of the view that the present
appeal is become infructuous. If the petitioner is
aggrieved by the order passed by the appellant
authority, is at liberty to challenge the same. All
contentions are kept open.
The orders in the other two intra court appeal, reserving
liberty, are essentially because of memo/s filed with a
request to call in question the Appellant Authority
subsequent orders dated 03.01.2012 leaving all contentions
open.
20.3 The question, whether the petitioners'
grievance as against the Disciplinary Authority's orders
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
remains open for consideration, will have to essentially turn
on the expanse of the liberty reserved by the Division Bench.
The petitioners' grievance with this Court's opinion on they
being given sufficient opportunity and that there is no
fallacy in the Disciplinary Authority's orders was pending
consideration in the intra court appeals, which are disposed
of because of the Appellate Authority subsequent orders on
the question whether the petitioners' services could be
terminated under the Service Rules without examining the
petitioners' grievance as against this Court's opinion. If the
Division Benches were of the opinion that the petitioners
cannot have any grievance as against this Court's opinion, it
would not be unreasonable to opine that there would have
been a categorical and unequivocal expression in that
regard, or in the least a qualified liberty reserved only to
challenge the Appellate Authority's orders.
20.4 In the absence of either any comment by
the Division Benches on the petitioners' grievance as against
this Court's conclusion or limiting the liberty reserve to call
in question just the appellate authority's orders in specific
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
terms, this Court is of the considered view that the
examination in the present proceedings cannot be limited
just to the merits of the Appellate Authority's orders. This
Court refer to the expressions "all contentions are kept open"
and "reserving liberty" employed by the Division Benches.
As such, the questions framed must be examined for a
decision on merits.
On Question [a]9
21. The essence of the charges against the
petitioner is that [a] they have deliberately not achieved
optimum utilization of the concerned units capacity and
they have suppressed the necessary details from the
concerned resulting in the decision to award the contract a
private millers, [b] they have not managed production
scheduling, [c] there is either delay in receiving wheat rava
from the private millers or they have received wheat rava
even before supplying wheat to the millers, [d] they have
9 Whether this Court must interfere the Discipline/Appellate Authorities'
orders on the grounds that [i] the charges against the petitioners are
vague and general, [ii] the petitioners have not had reasonable
opportunity, and [iii] the conclusions are not based on evidence
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
received wheat rava in the ratio far lesser than the
prescribed ratio [100:50 as against 100:100], [e] they have
permitted private millers, even millers from outside the
jurisdiction, to draw wheat without records. The imputation
is that the petitioners have been deliberate and negligent in
the above intending to cause pecuniary losses to the
corporation.
22. The Apex Court in Surath Chandra
Chakrabarty vs. State of Bengal and Anil Gilurker v.
Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Another
[supra] has held that the grounds on which disciplinary
action is proposed must be reduced to the form of a definite
charge/s and they have to be communicated to the person
concerned and that this rule embodies the principle that
specific contents afford a reasonable and adequate
opportunity for defending oneself. The Apex Court has also
opined that if a person is not actually informed about the
allegations in clear and definite terms, he cannot possibly,
by projecting his own imagination, discover all facts and
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
circumstances that may be in the contemplation against
him.
22.1 The Apex Court in its later decision in
Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P.Education Society and
others10, referring to these decisions and also certain earlier
decisions, has reiterated these propositions in the following
terms:
Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge-
sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and
definite description of the charge against him. When
statement of allegations are not served with the charge-
sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been
conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory; even if
the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a
protest that the charges are vague, that does not save
the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there
must be fair play in action, particularly in respect of an
order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is
required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew
the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific,
definite and giving details of the incident which formed
the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained
on vague charges.
10 2013 6 SCC 516
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
22.2 The first set of charges against the
petitioners is that they have failed to achieve optimum
utilization of the corresponding Unit's capacity. The
petitioners contend that this charge is vague because the
Corporation has not indicated the necessary material in the
charge sheet to justify that there was a certain fixed
Optimum Capacity and that the petitioners have failed to
achieve the same on one particular occasion, or on multiple
occasions. Their case is that these and other details had to
be produced. Admittedly, the petitioners have functioned as
the respective unit heads over a period of time. This Court
must opine that if the imputation is that there was a certain
Optimum Capacity, and the units were not put to full use of
such capacity, it was incumbent upon the Corporation to
furnish these two indices and the details of the period
during which there is shortfall. This Court must also opine
that if these details are furnished as charges/statement of
imputations such charges and imputation will lack details
and therefore, vague.
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
22.3 It is argued on behalf of the Corporation
that the petitioners have participated in the proceedings and
at this stage, they cannot raise this ground. However, the
Apex Court has clearly exposited that if the charges are
vague and the evidence adduced is perfunctory, the
proceedings are not saved only because the concerned have
not taken a defense in this regard and the dispositive test is
whether the concerned knew about the allegation.
22.4 Significantly, in the case of Sri. V.R.
Somwanshi on similar charge [the failure to optimize
capacity], the Inquiry Officer has opined that the charge is
not proved, but in the case of Sri. R. Ramesh Rao and Sri.
T.R. Srinath, the Inquiry Officer has opined that the charges
are proved. This Court, in the light of the discussion in the
Inquiry Report/ Disciplinary Authority's Orders [the
Appellate Authority has not considered these aspects] cannot
discern how it could be so in one case and not in the other
cases. Perhaps it could be observed that the vagueness in
the charge has even confused the Inquiry Officer and the
Disciplinary Authority.
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
22.5 The other charges against the petitioners
are that they have either received wheat rava beyond the
scheduled period or even before supply of wheat. In the case
of Sri. V.R. Somwanshi it is alleged that the corresponding
numbers are 39.730 mts and 2.29 mts. On his behalf it is
contended that he was working as unit head over a period of
time and there is supply of wheat and receive of wheat rava
during this period and that unless the charge specifically
mentioned that he received a particular quantity during a
particular period or supplied a particular quantity during a
particular period, he could not have defended against this
allegation.
22.6 This Court must observe that there is
considerable force in this contention. If Sri. V.R. Somwanshi
was indeed put on notice, as part of the charges, that he had
during a particular period, either received wheat rava
without supply of wheat or received wheat rava beyond a
particular time, he would have known what he was up
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
against. The Inquiry Officer11 has opined that the charges
against the Sri. V.R. Somwanshi are proved because he has
admitted in his cross-examination that he has received the
aforesaid quantities.
22.7 The Disciplinary Authority has extracted
cross examination by Sri V R Somwanshi [as also the other
petitioners in the corresponding orders and the extracted
portions in each of the orders are the same]. However this
Court, on reading of such extracts, must observe that there
is no such admission either by Sri V R Somwamshi or the
others. Therefore, the opinion that there is admission and
as such there is proof of the charge is wholly erroneous.
11 "The charge sheeted officer has admitted in his cross-
examination that it is true that he accepted wheat rava 20 days
prior to the lifting of wheat by Brindavan Flour Mills....
Sri. Somwanshi has come out with truth in his cross-
examination that he has accepted 2.29 M.Ts of wheat rava after
delay of more than 30 days from Brindavan Roller Flour Mills,
Bangalore. But the reason given by him that it was on account
of controlled wighment of the last consignment does not
convince me to take a different view of the matter."
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
22.8 Indeed, it is trite that strict rules of
evidence, will not apply in departmental proceedings, but
the requirement of definite charges and believable evidence
is a part of fair play that is integral to the proceedings. In
this context, this Court must observe that the purported
admission, though not required to be of the sterling quality
as it should be under the general rules of evidence, it must
reasonably indicate a categorical acknowledgement.
22.9 The next set of charges are that both Sri. R.
Ramesh Rao and Sri. T.R. Srinath have not observed proper
procedure in engaging the services of private millers and
they have permitted the private millers to lift wheat without
due authorization and without maintaining records. Here
again, the charges do not mention the prescribed
parameters that were required to be followed to afford a
reasonable opportunity to them to offer a plausible
explanation to vindicate their stand that charges are falsely
laid against them. This Court must opine that they would
have been extended a reasonable opportunity only if they
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
were put on notice of the relevant directives and guidelines
issued and the specific instances of failure.
22.10 The Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary
Authority have opined that these charges, which in this
Court's opinion are vague, are proved because of a certain
ratio that was required to be maintained in the supply of
wheat and receipt of wheat rava relying upon certain
observations in the reports filed by Sri. N.S. Sangolli and Sri.
R.B. Agwane without indicating the definite roles played by
each of these petitioners. As regards the ratios and the
details referred to in these reports and the efficacy of such
reports, this Court must observe that it is based on data and
orders and agreement concluded by the Corporation.
However, this agreement is not referred to in the charge or in
the material brought on record. The report also refers to
ratio of 100:50, 100:75 and 100:100, and if any particular
ratio is to be the dispositive factor, the petitioners should
have been put on notice of the period during which that
fallen short and if they have fallen short by varying ratios for
over a period of time, the details thereof.
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
22.11 Further, the reports have certain
annexures, and those annexures have not been introduced
as evidence. In the absence of specific instances of failure to
comply with the directives on engaging the services of
private millers or the inadequacies and maintaining the
records, this Court must opine that the vague and uncertain
charges are held to be proved on the basis of no evidence.
This Court must observe that these conclusions must also
extend to other imputations such as failure to ensure
implementation of the scheme and supply of wheat to millers
outside what is described as the Units' area of operation.
22.12 This Court must therefore opine that
the inquiry proceedings are commenced on the basis of
vague and indefinite charges and the Inquiry Reports are
filed opining that charges are proved without definite
evidence and that the Disciplinary Authority has accepted
these conclusions without considering the circumstances
but only extracting extensively the contents of the Reports
filed by Sri. N.S. Sangolli and Sri. R.B. Agwane and Inquiry
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Reports. The Appellate Authority, which should have gone
into all the details, has also not gone into these details. This
has resulted in the petitioners suffering a penalty without
fair opportunity. Hence, the question [a] framed is answered
accordingly.
On Question [b]12
23. The Disciplinary Authority, in the case of
Sri. V.R. Somwanshi, after referring to the Inquiry Officer's
report on the charges and the evidence as against such
charges has also referred to certain instances to opine that
he is not a person in whom any faith or trust could be
reposed. The instances referred to are as follows:
a) The alleged embezzlement of certain funds
showing exorbitant expenditure during National
Maize Mela 2001.
b) The allegation of utilization of substandard
jaggery, dal and wheat for manufacture of
energy food, during the year 1998-99.
12 Whether the impugned orders are vitiated in law because the
Disciplinary Authority has considered material and circumstances
that are extraneous to the Charges served on the petitioners
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
c) The payment of higher rate of commission to
M/s.Colonac International Limited, Chennai for
the purchase of 36,524 gunny bags.
d) The alleged loses to the Corporation when he
was working with the Corporations maize mill at
Bengaluru.
23.1 This Court, on perusal of the Disciplinary
Authority's order in this regard, must observe that the
decision to impose the penalty of termination of the Sri. V. R
Somwanshi's services is entwined by the consideration of the
aforesaid circumstances along with the consideration of the
Inquiry Officer's report. In the absence of any reference of
these materials in the article of charge served on Sri. V.R.
Somwanshi, this Court must opine that extraneous
consideration have gone into the decision.
23.2 Similarly, in the case of Sri. R. Ramesh Rao,
the Disciplinary Authority has referred to the alleged
exorbitant rates paid to M/s.Christy Fried Gram Industries
for purchase of ragi malt flour and the manner in which the
responsibilities are discharged by him as the Chief Division
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Manger when he was posted as the Corporation's Head
Office in Bengaluru, these instances are also not part of the
article of charges. In the case of Sri. T.R. Srinath, though no
specific instances as in the above two cases are mentioned,
there is a general reference to he defrauding the company
exhibiting "height of negligence and he being a security risk
to the Corporation".
23.3 This Court must observe that these
observations are not because of the outcome of the Inquiry
proceedings but a general assessment of circumstances
outside the scope of the inquiry to opine that the petitioners
have failed to work with honesty and sincerity. These
considerations must be held to be totally extraneous to the
disciplinary proceedings and is in violation of the principles
of natural justice because the inquiries are instituted not
only to establish the truth but also to extend a reasonable
opportunity to the concerned to establish his defense or
vindicate his position for exoneration against specific
charges. Hence, the question [b] framed is answered
accordingly.
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
On Question [c]13
24. The Disciplinary Authority, by the
impugned orders, has directed the termination of the
petitioners from their services, and it is contended that the
Service Rules do not contemplate termination of a
permanent employee, and the Rules contemplate
termination of only those employees who are in contractual
employment. This contention is in the light of the provisions
of Rule 8.3 of the Service Rules which read as under:
8-3 Penalties:
The following penalties may for good and sufficient
reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on
the employees namely;
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v) Reduction to a lower grade or post or to a lower
time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale;
vi) Compulsory retirement.
vii) Dismissal from service.
13 Whether the petitioners are served with penalty, which is beyond the
contemplation of the Services Rules.
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Explanation:
The following shall not amount to a penalty within the
meaning of this rule.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi) Termination of services of an employee employed
under an agreement in accordance with the terms
of such agreement and
vii) Termination of services of employees on
administrative grounds other than a disciplinary
measure as provided for under the rules, as the
said authority may in its discretion specify; and
where no such proposition specified the
employees shall be paid 50% of his basic pay and
dearness allowance based on such amount."
24.1 It is trite that the expression dismissal and
termination do not mean the same and they have their
respective connotations though both bring about ceasing of
employment. Generally, dismissal is a penalty imposed after
opportunity under the relevant Service Rules as is required
under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and
termination is not so as it will be upon contractual terms.
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
As such, dismissal is stigmatic while the termination is not.
Further, dismissal will result in denial of benefits, and
termination need not be so as certain amounts may have to
be paid according to the contractual terms.
24.2 The Corporation's Service Rules provide for
both dismissal and termination of permanent employees.
This Court must refer to Rule 2- 21 of the Service Rules
apart from Rule 8. The termination under Rule 8-3
Explanation (vii) is for administrative reasons and other
than as a disciplinary measure. If there is termination for
administrative reasons, the concerned may specify the terms
of severance, and if terms are not specified, the later part of
the Explanation will come into play. Further, the provisions
of Rule 2-21 of the Service Rules contemplate termination of
a permanent [and a temporary] employee but on certain
varying terms regarding notice period and the amount
payable in lieu thereof. Crucially, for the purposes of the
present case, this Court must opine that if there are
disciplinary proceedings, the termination will be Dismissal
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
from Service as contemplated under Rule 8-3(vii) of the
Service Rules.
24.3 The petitioners have been extended
opportunity to respond to certain imputations, and
thereafter a decision, though not found justifiable because of
the reasons as aforesaid, is taken to dismiss the petitioners.
It is nobody's case that the petitioners are terminated for
administrative grounds independent of the disciplinary
proceedings. Therefore, this Court must opine that the
petitioners have been served with the penalty of dismissal
from service, and the Appellate Authority's reference to the
provisions of Rule 8.3(vii) in its order dated 03.01.2012 is of
no significance in the circumstances discussed. Therefore,
this Court will not interfere with the orders of the
Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority on the ground
that the Corporation has travelled beyond the Service Rules
in this regard.
On Question [d]14
14 Whether there is any justification for interference with the decision to
recover from the petitioners' salary/gratuity/encashment of earned
leave
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
25. The decision to forfeit/ recover certain
amounts from the amounts payable to the petitioners is not
just because of the disciplinary proceedings discussed
above, but also because of the conclusion in certain other
proceedings and because of the show cause notices issued
as regards certain alleged losses caused to the Corporation.
In the case of Sri. V.R. Somwanshi, the decision to recover /
forfeit is based on the departmental proceedings conducted
by the Inquiry Officer Sri. Sosale Indudhar and certain show
cause notices issued and the anticipation of the culmination
of the civil proceedings, and in the case of Sri. R. Ramesh
Rao and Sri. T.R. Srinath, it is because of the aforesaid
disciplinary proceedings and certain losses alleged caused to
the Corporation because of other transactions.
26. The details of the orders/ show cause
notices and the nature of the amount/s proposed to be
recovered/ forfeited are as follows:
The petitioner's name/ The The amount and its nature
impugned Orders /Show recovered/ forfeited
Cause Notices in this
regard
- 66 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
Sri. V R Somwanshi Rs. 2,45,409/- [Gratuity] and
Rs 2,00,831/- [Leave Encashment]
i] Order dated 20.03.2007
[Annexure AD]
As against an ascertained loss of
Rs. 80,71,152/-
ii] Order dated 28.05.2007 Rs. 18,518/- [Salary]
[Annexure AF]
As against loss of Rs. 27,903]
caused the remaining [Rs. 9,385/-]
to be collected by filing a civil suit.
Sri. T.R Srinath Rs. 15,435/- [salary]
Dated 25/27.01.2007 in Rs. 2,93,725 [Gratuity] and
Annexure N
Rs. 1,26,135/- [Leave
Encashment]
For recovery of a sum of Rs.
32,25,000/- with direction to
recover the remaining Rs.
27,89,705/- by filing a civil suit.
Sri R Ramesh Rao Rs. 15,153 [Salary]
Dated 25/27.01.2007 in
Annexure R
- 67 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
For recovery of Rs. 32,25,000/,
and to recover the remaining Rs.
32,09,847/- by filing a civil suit
26.1 The question whether the Corporation can
forfeit the salaries, gratuity and Leave Encashment to
recover its dues must be necessarily examined in the light of
the provisions of Rule 8.3(v) and Rule 4-17 Note ii of the
Service Rules and the provisions of Section 4(6) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the light of decisions of the
Apex Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Ravindranath
Choubey15 and Jyotirmay Ray v. Field General Manager,
Punjab National Bank16. The Apex Court in these
decisions, referring to the provision Section 4(6) and Section
14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the relevant
service regulations, has held that, with the provisions of
Section 14 of this Act having overriding effect and the
provisions of section 4(6)17 contemplating forfeiture of
15 (2020) 18 SCC 71
16 (2023) SCC Online SC 1452
17 Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act reads as under:
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),--
- 68 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
gratuity on dismissal of an employee, it would be open to an
employer to forfeit gratuity. The relevant observations in the
second decision are as follows:
The provisions of Gratuity Act make it clear
that forfeiture of gratuity may be directed to the
extent of damage or loss so caused or
destruction of property belonging to employer.
In twin situations where the termination is due
to riotous or disorderly conduct or involvement
of the employee in a criminal case involving
moral turpitude, the gratuity shall be wholly
forfeited.
26.2 The Corporation's Service Rules do not
contemplate forfeiture of either gratuity or leave encashment
(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been
terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing
any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging
to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage
or loss so caused;
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee 6[may be wholly or
partially forfeited]--
(i) if the services of such employee have been
terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any
other act violence on his part, or
(ii) if the services of such employee have been
terminated for any act which constitutes an offence
involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is
committed by him in the course of his employment.
- 69 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
when there are disciplinary proceedings. However, the Rule
4-17 Note ii of the Service Rules read as under:
An employee who is discharged or dismissed
from the services of the Corporation during the
course of the year shall be paid earned leave
wages for the number of days of earned leave at
his credit at the time of his discharge or
dismissal from the service of the Corporation as
per the Section 15(4) of the Mysore Shops and
Commercial Establishments Act, 1963 and
Section 79(3) of the Factories Act, 1948.
It follows from the provisions referred to above that the
Corporation can forfeit gratuity but insofar as earned leave,
even when there is dismissal from service it must be paid
subject to the aforesaid provisions. As regards salary, the
provisions of the provisions of 8.3(iv) of the Service Rules
read as under:
8-3 Penalties:
The following penalties may for good and sufficient
reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on
the employees namely;
(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of
orders of the competent authorities of the
Corporation or State or Central Government.
- 70 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
The Corporation is thus vested with the power to recover
salary when there is pecuniary loss.
26.3 In the case of Sri V R Somwanshi the
decisions to forfeit salary /gratuity/ earned leave [Annexure
- AD and AF, which are dated 20.03.2007 and 28.05.2007],
are not because of the decision resulting from the
disciplinary proceedings referred to above but are
consequent to other proceedings in which the petitioner has
not participated. This Court is not called upon to decide the
merits of such proceedings, and therefore, there cannot be
any interference on this ground with these orders.
26.4 The decision to forfeit salary /gratuity/
earned leave [Annexure - N in WP No. 35645/2012 which is
dated 25/27.01.2007] in the case of Sri T R Srinath is because
of the decision resulting from the disciplinary proceedings
referred to above. With this Court opining that the decision
to dismiss him from service is in the light of vague and
general charges without evidence and in denial of fair
- 71 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
opportunity in the proceedings, this order dated
25/27.01.2007 must be quashed.
26.5 In the case of Sri R Ramesh Rao, the
decision [Annexure R dated 25/27.01.2007 in WP No.
35646/2012] is because of the conclusion of the
departmental proceedings resulting in his dismissal from
service which cannot be sustained in view of this Court's
opinion in the present proceedings, but there is no decision
to forfeit either gratuity or earned leave and the decision is
only to forfeit salary in a sum of ₹15,153/-. However, as the
decision to forfeit is because of the dismissal order, this
Court must interfere with this decision.
ORDER
[A] The writ petition is allowed in part quashing the
Disciplinary Authority' Order dated 25.01.2006
[Annexure -H], the Appellate Authority - Board's
order dated 21.11.2011 [Annexure - AP] and the
Order dated 03.01.2012 [Annexure - AN].
- 72 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
[B] The question of payment of consequential benefits
shall be considered subject to the orders dated
20.03.2007 and 28.05.2007 [Annexure AD and AF
respectively].
In WP No. 35645/2012:
[A] The writ petition is allowed in part quashing the
Disciplinary Authority's Order dated 25.01.2006
[Annexure -H] and the Appellate Authority -
Board's order dated 21.11.2011/ the Order dated
03.01.2012 [Annexure - Q] and the Order dated
25/27.01.2007 [Annexure - N].
[B] The consequential benefits shall be paid by the
petitioner subject to orders if any otherwise. The
petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a
representation with the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Government of Karnataka enclosing a
certified copy of this order within 6 [six] weeks
from the date of receipt thereof.
- 73 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
[C] The Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
Government of Karnataka is called upon to
communicate the outcome of such consideration
within a period of 3 [three] months from the date
of such representation.
In WP No. 35646/2012:
[A] The writ petition is allowed in part quashing the
Disciplinary Authority' Order dated 25.01.2006
[Annexure-K] and the Appellate Authority -
Board's order dated 21.11.2011/ Order dated
03.01.2012 [Annexure - T] and Order dated
25/27.01.2007 [Annexure - R].
[B] The consequential benefits shall be paid to the
petitioner subject to orders if any otherwise. The
petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a
representation with the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Government of Karnataka enclosing a
certified copy of this order within 6 [six] weeks
from the date of receipt thereof.
- 74 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30778
[C] The Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
Government of Karnataka is called upon to
communicate the outcome of such consideration
within a period of 3 [three] months from the date
of such representation.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
*NV
Ct:vh
