- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102095 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VASANT GUNAGA S/O. RAMACHANDRA, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. GOURI CHAWL, TSS ROAD, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. 1A. SMT. GOURI W/O VASANT GUNAGA, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O: 151/3, TSS ROAD, GOWRI CHAUL, POST: NEW MARKET YARD, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA- 581401. 1B. PUNIT S/O VASANT GUNAGA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: 154/3, TSS ROAD, GOWRI CHAWAL, NEW MARKET ROAD, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA- 581401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SOURABH SONDUR, AND SRI K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA FOREST, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VANAVIKAS, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU -560003. 2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA FOREST, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SHIVAMOGGA -577207. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A. THE HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F SAM/ KA.A.A.NI.NI/ KANI/ Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 SHI/ A-3/ CR-159/ 03.04/ 05-06/ 339 DATED 06-06-2006 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND B. THE HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLYBE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-S ORDER NO. KAANINI/ A1/ WRIT NO. 100344/ 2017/ 2021-22/ 749 DATED 29-10-2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND C. THE HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REINISTATE THE PETITIONER BACK IN TO THE SERVICE AND FIX HIS SALARY AND OTHER BENEFITS FROM TIME TO TIME TILL HE ATTAINED THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION AND PAY THE ARREAR OF SALARY AND OTHER INCIDENTAL BENEFITS ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. D. THAT THE HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY ISSUE OR DIRECT ANY OTHER ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of compulsory retirement and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.10.2021 affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of compulsory retirement. 2. Heard Shri Sourabh Sandur for Shri K.L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 3. The facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is appointed in the Karnataka Forest Development Corporation on 16.06.1973. The petitioner was working as Assistant Plantation Superintendent in the Corporation at Sirsi, owing to unauthorised absence of the petitioner, penalty of compulsory retirement comes to be imposed upon him and 31.05.2006. The departmental appeal so filed against the imposition of penalty results in its dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition to submit that the entire proceedings are vitiated by grave illegalities in conduct of proceedings. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent only for seven months. The imposition of penalty upon the ground that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 1938 days, which is seven years. That is the first illegality. Learned counsel would further submit that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 Disciplinary Authority has not issued a charge sheet, but the charge sheet is issued by the Enquiry Officer himself or the subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority. He would further contend that while issuing the second show cause notice, the penalty that is to be imposed upon him was also indicated. Therefore, all these would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court and all of which would be considered in the course of the order qua their relevance. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is the Disciplinary Authority who is issued charge sheet, but the Enquiry Officer appointed is subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority, which is in tune with law. He would contend that the petitioner has replied to the second show cause notice and has not raised this ground, of it being a post decisional hearing. Therefore, insofar as the days of absence is concerned, learned counsel would seek to justify the action - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 by contending that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent close to seven years and not seven months, as is contended. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 7. The services of the petitioner in the respondent Corporation is not in dispute. It would suffice if the lis would be narrated from the date of the petitioner remaining absent from duties. The petitioner remains absent with effect from 01.02.2005 to 28.09.2005. Based upon this, disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. The charge sheet so issued against the petitioner depicts unauthorised absence, but does not depict the number of days of absence. The petitioner submits his reply to the charge sheet. The reply is submitted by the petitioner justifying the unauthorised absence for seven months. The reply being found unsatisfactory, the Enquiry Officer is appointed to hold the disciplinary proceedings against the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submits his report holding the charges has proved. The Disciplinary Authority issues a second show cause notice to the petitioner, the second show cause notice reads as follows: “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CgÀtå C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ. (PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÁéªÀÄåPÉÌ M¼À ¥ÀnÖ G¢ÝªÉÄ) ¸ÀA/PÀ.C.C.¤.¤/PÁ¤/²/J-3/¹Dgï-159/03.04/05-06/44 ¢£ÁAPÀ:06.04.2006 ¸ÀÆZÀ£É (¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 50 (17) (ii) gÀrAiÀÄ°è) «µÀAiÀÄ:- ²æà «.Dgï UÀÄ£ÀUÁ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ. ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï WÀlPÀ EªÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À eÁj PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1) «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀCC¤¤.,zsÁgÀªÁqÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ, EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀA.PÀ CC¤¤/zsÁ« /¸À«ªÀå/zÉÆÃ.¥À/05.06/2279 ¢:20.01.2006. ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀvÁå ¸ÀvÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß w½AiÀÄ®Ä, F PÀbÉÃj: eÁÕ¥À£Á ¥ÀvÀæ EzÉà PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ ¸ÀA.1407 ¢.6/12.12.2005 gÀ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ «¨sÁUÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV £ÉëĹ. «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ DzÉò¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Àqɹ, CªÀgÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 50 (17) (i) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ MzÀV¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ, ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 46 (Vi) gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ, ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÀgÀªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛUÉƽ¸À®Ä - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ«¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä ºÉýPÉUÀ¼ÉãÁzÀgÀÆ EzÀÝ°è F ¸ÀÆZÀ£Á ¥ÀvÀæ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ K¼ÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV ²¸ÀÄÛ, ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 50 (17) (ii) (i) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ,” 8. The second show cause notice appends the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner then submitted his reply and the Disciplinary Authority imposes penalty of compulsory retirement by the following order: ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CgÀtå C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀ£ÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ «¨sÁUÀ ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï WÀlPÀzÀ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÁV ¸ÉêɸÀ°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ²æà «.Dgï UÀÄ£ÀUÁ EªÀgÀÄ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw CxÀªÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÁgÀzÉà 01.02.05 jAzÀ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVzÁÝgÉ. EªÀgÀÄ ¢: 29.09.05 gÀAzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÁdgÁzÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F »A¢£À ¢£ÀUÀ¼À®Æè, EªÀgÀÄ C£ÉÃPÀ ¨Áj PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ CªÀgÀµÀÖPÉÌ CªÀgÀÄ UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F §UÉÎ WÀlPÀ ºÁUÀÆ «¨sÁUÀ ªÀÄlÖ¢AzÀ CªÀgÀ PÁgÀt PÉý ¸ÀÆZÀ£Á ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÀzÀ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥À£À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è «µÀzÀ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CAwªÀĪÁV, EªÀgÀÄ ¢: 10.11.2004 gÀ°è £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï WÀlPÀ EªÀjUÉ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆlÄÖ. ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C¤ªÀÄw E®èzÉà ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÆ, ºÁUÉà ºÉÆÃzÀ°è ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆüÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ©ü£Àß«¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. EªÀgÀ ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è MlÄÖ 1938 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ C£À¢PÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁVzÁÝgÉ. EªÀgÀ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdjAiÀÄ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄU¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁðt¹, EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹zÀÞ¥Àr¹ F «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ «¨sÁUÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA 2014 ¢ 13.12.2005 gÀ°è - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 eÁjUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ «ZÁgÀuÉUÁV F PÀbÉÃj eÁÕ¥À£Á ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA 1 ¢ 08/12.12.2005 gÀ°è ²æà J¸ï.J£ï.ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ w «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ «¨sÁUÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÁßV" AiÀÄÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà ¹.©. »gÉêÀÄoÀ C¢üÃPÀëgÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ WÀlPÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉëĸÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɬĹ' «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA.2279 ¢: 20.01.2006gÀ°è F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹zÁÝgÉ. «ZÁgÀuÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æà J.Dgï. UÀÄ£ÀUÁ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï WÀlPÀ EªÀgÀÄ, CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV M¥ÀàPÉÆAqÀÄ (¢: 10.01.06 gÀAzÀÄ) °TvÀ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. CªÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C®èUÀ¼ÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÁPÀëÄ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀzÉà £ÉÃgÀªÁV M¦àPÉÆÃAqÀÄgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. £ËPÀgÀgÀ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdjAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ ¥Àj¥ÁoÀªÀ£ÀÄß wzÀÄÝPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ CªÀPÁ±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝgÀÆ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄxÀðªÁV G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÀªÀÄä £ÀqÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß w¢ÝPÉƼÀîzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß E°è «µÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¸À¯ÁVzÉ. EªÀgÀ F zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉUÉ " PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÉÄà ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ GzÉÝò¹, ¤UÀªÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 50 17(ii)(i) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹, EªÀgÀ ºÉýQUÀ¼ÉãÁzÀgÀÆ EzÀÝ°è w½¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. G¯ÉèÃR (3) CªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁwUÉ ¸ÀPÁgÀtUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈvÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä wêÀiÁ𤹠F PɼÀV£À DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÉñÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÁßzsÀj¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CgÀtå C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ ¸ÉêÁ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 48 gÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 46(i) gÀAvÉ ²æà J.Jgï. UÀÄ£ÀUÁ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï WÀlPÀ, ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀPÀët¢AzÀ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ' PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛ UÉƽ¹ DzÉò¹zÉ. ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÁðºÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer so appointed was the Assistant Divisional Manager, Dharwad Division, this can be gathered from the afore quoted second show cause notice. The charge sheet was issued by the Divisional Manager who has affixed his signature to the charge sheet. it reads as follows: “C£ÀħAzsÀ-3 DgÉÆÃ¥À ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, £ÉÃqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÄ C¢üÃPÀëgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CgÀtå C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄvÀ, ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï WÀlPÀ EªÀjAzÀ eÁÕ¥À£Á ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÁj ªÀiÁrzÀ «ªÀgÀ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1) eÁÕ¥À£Á ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå 67 ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.06.2003. 2) eÁÕ¥À£Á ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå 67 ¢£ÁAPÀ 25.08.2003. 3) CAwªÀÄ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 22 ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.04.2004. 4) ¢£ÁAPÀ 13.11.2003 jAzÀ 1997 £Éà PÉÆ¥ÀàgÀ¹PÉÆ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁªÀÄwÃxÀð ºÉƸÀPÉÆ¥Àà £ÉqÀÄvÉƦ£À°è £ÀqɹzÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄUÀ¼ÀÄ . 5) ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.11.2003 gÀAzÀÄ 2001£Éà £ÉqÀÄvÉƦ£À°è £ÀqɹzÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ. 6) ²æà «.¹. ªÀiÁgÀA©ÃqÀ, CgÀtå gÀPÀëPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï WÀlPÀzÀ £ÉqÀÄPÉÆÃzÀÄ C¢üÃPÀëPÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.11.2003 gÀ°è PÉÆqÀªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀgÀ¢. 7) £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå 301 ¢ 24.11.2003 8) £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå 301 ¢ 24.11.2003 9) £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå 168 ¢ 08.09.2003 10) £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå 374 ¢ 26.12.2003 11) £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå 31 ¢ 04.05.2004 12) £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå 73 ¢ 27.062004 13) £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå 31 ¢ 04.05.2004 14) ¸ÉêÁ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÀÄß eÁj ªÀiÁrzÀ «ªÀgÀ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1) PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå 1011 ¢£ÁAPÀ 13.10.2003 2) PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå 1679 ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.02.2004 3) PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå 431 ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.06.2004 4) PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. 1143 ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.09.2004 5) PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. 2204 ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.03.2004 6) PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. 1143 ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.09.2004 ²æà «.Dgï. UÀÄ£ÀUÁ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ F »AzÉ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV gÀeÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É EzÀÄÝ, PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÁdgÁUÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.11.2004 C£ÀħAzsÀ-4, DgÉÆÃ¥À ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ. ²æà a.J£ï.£ÀAzÀUÁ« £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÅ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CgÀtå C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ ºÁ£ÀUÀ¯ï. ²æà «.¹. ªÀiÁgÀA©üÃqÀ, ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ CgÀtå gÀPÀëPÀ, ºÁ¸ÀUÀ®Ä WÀlPÀ.” 10. Therefore Disciplinary Authority appoints Divisional Manager to be the Enquiry Officer, he does not issue the charge sheet, the charge sheet is issued by the Assistant Divisional Manager. It is trite law that issuance of charge sheet is a quasi judicial function, such quasi judicial function cannot be delegated, the Discipline Authority alone has to issue the charge sheet and appoint the Enquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the first illegality in the case at hand is the charge sheet - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 being issued by the Assistant Divisional Manager who is admittedly not the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority is the Managing Director who has not issued the charge sheet. Therefore. the very act of issuance of charge sheet is vitiated on account of it being issued by as in-competent authority. 11. The next submission is the second show cause notice. The second show cause notice should be a pre decisional hearing and not post decisional hearing. The second show cause notice is extracted herein above. The second paragraph, of the second show cause notice indicates that the petitioner to reply as to why penalty of compulsory retirement should not be imposed upon him. This undoubtedly would mean that, it is a post decisional hearing and not pre decisional hearing. Therefore on the aforesaid twin score the proceedings are vitiated. 12. The other circumstance is the order of imposition of penalty narrates to the fact that the petitioner is absent for close to seven years while the records would reveal that - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3585 WP No. 102095 of 2022 the petitioner was absent only for about seven seven months, therefore where from the Disciplinary Authority got the figure of seven years is un-understandable nor the petitioner is notified with regard to the absence of seven years. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was absent for seven months. On all these factors, the entire proceedings and the resultant imposition of penalty will have to be stand obliterated. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order at Annexure-F dated 06.06.2006 passed by respondent No.2 stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNPv /CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15