PER K.L.MANJUNATH, J. - (1.)THE legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.14931/2006 dated 22.8.2007 is called in question in this appeal.
(2.)THE appellant is working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Technical Rural Sub -Division, Davangere. A domestic enquiry was initiated levelling certain misconduct against him. Enquiry Officer found that the work of the appellant is only preparing estimate in connection with the work to be executed by the . Assistant Engineer -Technical (Execution) and therefore there was no hand of the appellant in regard to the alleged misconduct.
(3.)DISCIPLINARY authority tentatively held that the enquiry report cannot be accepted and a show cause notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant sent detailed reply saying that there was no reason for the disciplinary authority to disagree with the report of the enquiry officer and that he was not in -charge of the execution of the work has to be done by the other section by name Mr. Yeshwanth Rao who had accepted before the enquiry officer that there was no role of the appellant in execution of the work. He further stated that he was in -charge of the other Mega Project ar.d therefore there was no misconduct on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, he requests the disciplinary authority to drop the proceedings. The disciplinary authority disagreeing with the reply of the appellant and disagreeing with the enquiry officer has ordered to withhold two increments and treating the suspension period as leave without allowances. Challenging the same, he preferred the appeal before the appellate authority. Appellate authority, by order dated 16.2.2006 confirming the order of punishment dated 2.4.2005. Challenging these two orders, writ petition was filed by the appellant. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that merely because a clean chit given by the enquiry officer cannot be a ground to enquire in the writ petition. This order is called in question in this appeal.
Counsel appearing for the appellant taking us through the evidence of Yeshwanth Rao and report of the enquiry officer and so also the reply sent by the appellant to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority contends that without fixing the responsibility of the appellant, disciplinary authority has wrongly held that the appellant was negligent in not supervising the work executed by the Assistant Engineer (Operation and Execution). He further contends that even the appellate authority has committed the same mistake. Therefore, he requests the court to re -consider the matter as on account of the punishment 200 officials who have been worked below the appellant have been placed above him, therefore he requests the court to set aside the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority: Per contra, counsel for the respondent made an attempt to support the orders of the authorities below.