Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired District and Sessions Judge and member of the Karnataka Judicial Service, was found guilty in a disciplinary enquiry and was imposed a punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect, communicated on 18.12.2008. The Accountant General (A&E), Karnataka, by letter dated 23.03.2009, stated that the punishment was incapable of implementation as the petitioner had attained superannuation on 31.01.2006. After taking the opinion of the Financial Advisor, a show-cause notice dated 04.09.2010 was issued to the petitioner, who submitted a reply on 06.09.2010. The punishment was then reviewed and modified. Subsequently, the Accountant General sought clarification regarding the treatment of the suspension period, leading to the impugned communication dated 29.04.2011 (Annexure-N) which stated that the period of suspension be treated as such and that the petitioner was entitled only to subsistence allowance during that period. The petitioner challenged this communication as void and unsustainable. The court observed that the disciplinary authority had not passed any order regarding the treatment of the suspension period and that the communication was issued without authority. The court quashed the communication and directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Modification of Punishment - Karnataka Civil Services Rules - The petitioner, a retired judicial officer, was initially imposed a punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. The Accountant General having stated that the punishment was incapable of implementation due to superannuation, the disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice and modified the punishment. The court held that the modification was done after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and was valid. (Paras 1-3) B) Service Law - Suspension Period - Treatment of Suspension - Karnataka Civil Services Rules - The communication dated 29.04.2011 treating the suspension period as such and stating that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance only was challenged. The court held that the disciplinary authority had not passed any order regarding the treatment of suspension period and the communication was without authority. The court quashed the communication and directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the communication dated 29.04.2011 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as such is valid and sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 29.04.2011 (Annexure-N) is quashed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, regarding the treatment of the period of suspension.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Show-cause notice
- Modification of punishment
- Suspension period treatment
- Karnataka Civil Services Rules
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
