2020 (7) TMI 848 - HC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary enquiry recommendation and show-cause notice for compulsory retirement challenged after criminal acquittal; review held premature

Judicial review was sought against a disciplinary enquiry report/recommendation and a show-cause notice proposing compulsory retirement, relying inter ... Imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement from services of the first respondent - Challenge to enquiry report, recommendation, and SCN issued by the second respondent - petitioner has been acquitted before the Special Court by the Court of LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru - HELD THAT:- It is found that Annexure-P dated 17th February, 2020 is only a recommendation, which has been made by Hon’ble Upalokayukta-I. On the said recommendation, only a show-cause notice dated 18th June, 2020 has been issued to the petitioner as per Annexure-Q. The petitioner has not yet submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice and it is also noted that no further order has been passed in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a week’s time to submit reply to the second show-cause notice dated 18th June, 2020 (Annexure-Q) by the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to do so. It is not proper to interfere with the matter. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, in the event any adverse order is made as against the petitioner. In such an event, liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to raise all contentions which have been raised in this petition. The writ petition is disposed of. The writ petition challenged an enquiry report, a subsequent recommendation by the Upalokayukta-I, and a show-cause notice proposing penalty. The petitioner, a Meter Reader with the respondent water supply board, argued that he had been acquitted in a criminal case and therefore the recommendation and show-cause notice issued pursuant to the enquiry report were unsustainable. It was also noted that the petitioner had not yet submitted a reply to the show-cause notice and that 'no further order has been passed in the matter.' The Court held that the impugned recommendation 'is only a recommendation,' and that, based on it, only a show-cause notice had been issued. Since the disciplinary process had not culminated in any final adverse order and the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice, the Court found it premature to exercise writ jurisdiction, stating, 'at this stage, we do not think it proper to interfere with the matter.' The petition was disposed of with liberty to submit a reply within one week and with liberty to re-approach the Court if an adverse order is subsequently passed, raising all available contentions.