Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Shankarappa, an employee of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), challenged the recommendation dated 16.01.2015 made by the Upa-lokayukta under Regulation 14(A)(d) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987, recommending his compulsory retirement from service, and the consequent show-cause notice dated 15.05.2015 issued by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary inquiry had earlier exonerated the petitioner, but the Upa-lokayukta disagreed with the inquiry officer's findings and recommended compulsory retirement without hearing the petitioner. The disciplinary authority then issued a show-cause notice proposing to accept the Upa-lokayukta's recommendation. The High Court framed three questions: whether the Upa-lokayukta can disagree with the inquiry officer's findings; what procedure the disciplinary authority must follow when disagreeing with the inquiry officer or Upa-lokayukta; and whether the earlier decision in KPTCL vs. Javarai Gowda was per incuriam. The Court held that the Upa-lokayukta's disagreement without hearing the petitioner violated natural justice, and the disciplinary authority must also provide a hearing before differing from the inquiry officer or Upa-lokayukta. The Court quashed the recommendation and show-cause notice, and declared the Javarai Gowda decision per incuriam. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Disagreement with Inquiry Officer - Upa-lokayukta cannot disagree with the findings of an inquiry officer without providing an opportunity of hearing to the employee. The recommendation made without such hearing is vitiated. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Procedure for Disagreement - Disciplinary Authority must issue a show-cause notice and give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the employee before differing from the findings of the inquiry officer or the recommendation of Upa-lokayukta. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-10) C) Precedent - Per Incuriam - The decision in KPTCL vs. Javarai Gowda & Anr. [ILR 2015 KAR 1615] is per incuriam as it was rendered without considering the relevant regulations and the requirement of natural justice. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether Upa-lokayukta can disagree with the findings of an inquiry officer recorded in a disciplinary inquiry? (ii) What is the procedure to be followed by a Disciplinary Authority, if it disagrees with the findings of an inquiry officer and/or the recommendation of Upa-lokayukta? (iii) Whether the decision of this Court in The KPTCL vs. Javarai Gowda & Anr. [ILR 2015 KAR 1615] is per incuriam?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The recommendation dated 16.01.2015 (Annexure-K) made by the Upa-lokayukta and the show-cause notice dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure-L) issued by respondent No.1 are quashed. The decision in KPTCL vs. Javarai Gowda & Anr. [ILR 2015 KAR 1615] is declared per incuriam.
Law Points
- Upa-lokayukta cannot disagree with inquiry officer's findings without hearing the employee
- Disciplinary authority must issue show-cause notice and give hearing before differing from inquiry officer or Upa-lokayukta
- Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification
- Disciplinary
- Control and Appeal) Regulations
- 1987
- Regulation 14(A)(d)
- Natural justice
- Principles of fair hearing
