Karnataka High Court | Disciplinary Authority Not Required to Give Prior Hearing Before Recording Disagreement Under Rule 11A(2) of CCS Rules; Modified Penalty on Retired Corporation Employee Upheld
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Rajesh Rai K held that Rule 11A(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules does not require giving an opportunity to a delinquent officer before the Disciplinary Authority records its disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s findings on the charges. Setting aside the Single Judge’s order that had quashed the disciplinary action against a retired Junior Assistant of the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, the Bench modified the penalty to withholding one increment with cumulative effect and directed that the employee’s period of absence be counted for continuity of service without salary.
The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation against a Junior Assistant employed since 1986, later regularized in 1988. The employee had availed leave between May 31 and June 30, 2004. During this period, she was transferred from the Head Office in Bengaluru to the District Office at Hassan. On her representation, the transfer order was subsequently cancelled, and she was retained at the Head Office.
A charge sheet dated September 2, 2005, was issued alleging three instances of misconduct: unauthorized absence from duty since May 31, 2004; disobedience of transfer and relieving orders; and bringing political pressure to modify the transfer order, said to constitute misconduct under Rule 26 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The Enquiry Officer conducted proceedings and reported that none of the charges were proved.
The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with these findings and recorded reasons for its disagreement. A notice dated October 7, 2011, was issued to the employee communicating the points of disagreement and seeking her response. After considering her reply, the authority imposed penalties including withholding two increments with cumulative effect, forfeiting 50 percent of salary for the period of compulsory retirement, and treating a specific period as unauthorized absence without wages.
The employee challenged the punishment before the Single Judge, contending that the Disciplinary Authority had not followed the required procedure and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The Single Judge relied on a Supreme Court decision in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra to hold that a notice was necessary before recording disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s findings. The employer, in turn, appealed, arguing that under Rule 11A(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, no such notice was required and that the disciplinary process had been conducted in accordance with the applicable rules.
Justice D.K. Singh stated: “Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A does not contemplate issuing any notice to the delinquent official at the stage of recording the point of disagreement on the findings of the inquiry officer on any of the charges.” The Court further noted that the principles of natural justice require notice and opportunity to be given before the imposition of a final penalty, not before the stage of disagreement itself.
Referring to the precedent relied upon by the Single Judge, the Bench stated that the decision in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra interpreted sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 7 of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1977, which is pari materia with Rule 11-A(2) of the Karnataka CCA Rules. However, the Bench clarified that the Supreme Court judgment did not mandate a hearing before recording disagreement.
The High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation: “The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice… require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges.”
The Court stated: “We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the CCA Rules contemplates providing an opportunity to the delinquent officer before recording the point of disagreement on the findings of the Enquiry Officer.”
The Bench held: “we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, considering the fact that respondent No.1/petitioner has been leading a difficult life inasmuch as she has a mentally retarded grown up daughter, now aged 35 years, and she could not focus on her service, because of the need to attend to her mentally retarded grown up daughter, the punishment inflicted on respondent No.1/petitioner for withholding two increments with cumulative effect, is shockingly respondent No.1, particularly when the Enquiry Officer did not find the charges proved. Therefore, the first punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is modified to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Insofar as the third punishment is concerned, we direct that the absence period from 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 should be treated for continuity of service, without payment of salary for the said period on the principle of 'No work, no pay'.”
“Thus in view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Smt. Manasi Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent No. 1
Case Title: M/s Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Smt. T. Nalini & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:41009-DB
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 1641 of 2024
Bench: Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Rajesh Rai K
