- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) RESPONDENT-CORPORATION was constituted under the state Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (1951 Act ). Appellant was appointed as Trainee Assistant Manager in the Corporation in June 1983. She was promoted and posted as Branch Manager at Chikkaballapur Branch. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her in april, 1996. The imputation of charges against her pertained to sanction and disbursal of amount of loan in four cases. As many as four charges were framed against her. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Managing Director of Corporation, wherein one Sri B. Rudregowda, a legal advisor of the company, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 4th July, 1996. A finding of guilt was arrived at by the said Enquiry Officer, a copy whereof was made available to the appellant. The records of the disciplinary proceeding were placed before the Board of Directors of the Corporation. By an order dated 9th June, 1998 a penalty of dismissal from services was imposed upon her. Appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Board itself on or about 4th December, 1998. The said appeal was treated to be a petition for review which by reason of an order dated 2nd March, 1999 was dismissed. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of karnataka at Bangalore. By reason of a judgment and order dated 23rd June, 2005 a learned Single judge of the said Court dismissed the writ petition. An intra-court appeal was preferred thereagainst which has been dismissed by a division Bench of the said High court by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2006. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, principally raised two contentions before us :- i) Having regard to clause (3) of Regulation 41 of Karnataka State financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1965 a Legal Advisor could not have been appointed as an Enquiry Officer; and ii) In the absence of any provision in the Regulations unlike Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Managing director of the Corporation could not have transferred the proceeding to the Board of Directors. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, urged :- i) Appointment of a Legal Advisor is permissible under clause (3) of Regulation 41 of the Regulations; and ii) As a major penalty was proposed to be imposed, the Board of Directors only was the competent authority therefor in terms of the Regulations.
(3.) BEFORE adverting to the rival contentions of the parties as noticed hereinbefore, we may notice that the terms and conditions of appointment and service of the staff of the Corporation are governed by the 1951 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder known as Karnataka State Financial Corporation (Staff)Regulations, 1965 (for short the Regulations ). Officers of the Corporation are classified in three groups, namely Class A; class B and Class C. Appellant was a Category 'a' Officer. Chapter IV of the Regulations deals with conduct, discipline and appeals. Regulation 26 deals with the liability of an employee to abide by the Regulations and the Orders. Regulation 28 enjoins a duty upon the employee to promote the interest of the Corporation. Regulation 41 deals with penalties which reads as under :- "without prejudice to the provisions of other Regulations, an employee who commits a breach of the Rules or Regulations of the Corporation or who display negligence, inefficiency or indolence, or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interests of the Corporation or in conflict with its instructions, or commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other act of misconduct, shall be liable to the following penalties : (a) censure; (b) delay or stoppage of increments or promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar, if any; (c) reduction to a lower post or grade or to a lower stage in the time scale; (d) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the corporation by negligence or breach of orders; (e) dismissal. (2) No employee shall be subjected to the penalties (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-regulation (1) except by an order in writing signed by an appropriate disciplinary authority and no such order of the disciplinary authority shall be passed without the charge or charges being formulated in writing and given to the said employees so that he shall have reasonable opportunity to answer them in writing or in person, as he prefers, and in the latter case his defence shall be taken down in writing and read to him. For this purpose the disciplinary authorities will be as indicated at Appendix iii of the (Staff) Regulations, 1965 of KSFC : provided that the requirements of this sub-regulation may be waived if the facts on the basis of which action is to be taken have been established in a Court of Law or court-Martial or where the employee has absconded or where it is for any other reason impracticable to communicate with him or where there is difficulty in observing them and the requirements can be waived without causing injustice to the employee in every case, where all or any of the requirements of this sub-regulation are waived, the reasons therefor shall be recorded in writing. (3) The enquiry under this sub-regulation and the procedure with the exception of the final order may be delegated to an officer of the Corporation of a rank above that of the employee against whom the charges have been framed. We may, however, note that according to the respondents, clause (3)of Regulation 41 in fact reads as under :- "41 (3 ). For the purpose of holding an enquiry into Articles of charges, disciplinary Authority may itself hold an enquiry or appoint an Inquiring authority for the purpose from amongst the offices of the Corporation of rank above that of the employee against whom the charges have been framed or any authority as listed in the panel approved for the purpose. " ;