Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri B. Neelakant, was an employee of the Dharwad, Haveri, Gadag and Uttara Kannada Districts Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (Respondent No.1). An inquiry was conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta (Respondent No.3) under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, resulting in a report dated 29.07.2017 (Annexure-A) that found the petitioner guilty of certain allegations. Based on this report, the Upa Lokayukta-I (Respondent No.2) made a recommendation dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure-B), and the Managing Director (Respondent No.1) passed an order dated 09.01.2018 (Annexure-C) dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged these orders by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The primary legal issue was whether the inquiry and the subsequent dismissal were valid when the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that the Lokayukta inquiry was conducted ex parte without affording him a chance to cross-examine witnesses or present his case, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the inquiry was proper and the dismissal was justified. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the inquiry report and the recommendation were made without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, which is a fundamental requirement of natural justice. The court held that the impugned report, recommendation, and dismissal order were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential service benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Sections 12(3), 9, 7(2)(a) - The petitioner, an employee of a Cooperative Milk Producers Societies Union, was dismissed based on a report by the Lokayukta without being given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present his defense. The court held that the inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and the report and dismissal order were quashed. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to set aside the Lokayukta report and the consequential dismissal order as they were passed without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned report submitted by the Additional Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta and the subsequent order of dismissal passed by the Managing Director based on such report are sustainable in law, when the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing during the inquiry.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned report dated 29.07.2017 (Annexure-A), recommendation dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure-B), and dismissal order dated 09.01.2018 (Annexure-C) are quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in his post with all consequential service benefits.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Opportunity of Hearing
- Lokayukta Act
- Karnataka Lokayukta Act
- 1984
- Section 12(3)
- Section 9
- Section 7(2)(a)
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
