Article 311(1) Guarantees Safeguards To Govt Employees Including Right To Fair Enquiry Before Any Adverse Action Is Taken: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on an Assistant Professor, by the Executive Council of the Visvesvaraya Technological University. A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr.Yogananda A and said, “The impugned penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The respondent No.3-Disciplinary Authority is hereby directed to adhere to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra and also take cognizance of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and shall issue a fresh show cause notice.” The petitioner had questioned disciplinary action taken against him by the Governing Council resulting in the recommendation for compulsory retirement consequently the Registrar who is the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show cause notice indicating the inflicting of penalty. In perusing Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, as discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and Others, the bench observed that it guarantees certain safeguards to Government employees including the right to fair enquiry before any adverse action is taken against the employees.This constitutional provision ensures that no Government employee is deprived of their livelihood arbitrarily or without due process, it stated. It further noted that Article 311 (1) underscores the importance of providing employees with enquiry reports prior to the initiation of any punitive action, thereby enabling them to effectively defend themselves against allegations and ensuring procedural fairness. The court held that the issuance of a second show cause notice by respondent No.3-Disciplinary Authority, after the recommendation for compulsory retirement by the Governing Council represents a departure from established legal norms. Furthermore, it stated that respondent No.3 being subordinate to the Governing Council, lacked the autonomy to independently assess the situation or exercise judgment. This lack of discretion compromises the fairness and impartiality of the disciplinary process, the court underscored. Further, it said that the role of the Disciplinary Authority extends beyond mere adherence to procedural formalities; it necessitates the exercise of independent judgment, free from undue influence or bias. "The respondent No.3/Registrar lacked autonomy and freedom in view of recommendation by the Governing Council to impose penalty and therefore, the impugned penalty imposed by the respondent No.2 in compliance of the dictate of the Governing Council is not at all sustainable,” the Court concluded.Appearance: Advocate Prithveesh M.K for Petitioner. Advocate Santosh S Nagarale for R3. Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151 Case Title: Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others Case No: Writ Petition No 21705 OF 2021 Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder

Article 311(1) Guarantees Safeguards To Govt Employees Including Right To Fair Enquiry Before Any Adverse Action Is Taken: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags