VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 249
541
reasons to the contrary, penalty of compulsory
retirement, removal or dismissal shall be imposed
for a charge of corruption, in rule 8 of Karnataka Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, not ultra vires.
Rudragowda vs. State of Karnataka,
1986(1) SLR KAR 73
The Government provisionally accepting finding of guilt
recorded by the Commissioner of Enquiries issued show-cause
notices dated 4-3-85 and 6-3-85. On a consideration of the
representation made pursuant to the show cause notices, the
Government ordered compulsory retirement by order dated 24-4-85.
The petitioner challenged the vires of proviso to rule 8 of the Karnataka
Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 on the ground that it violates Art.
14 of Constitution. It was contended that the disciplinary authority
has no choice or discretion to impose any one of the penalties
enumerated in rule 8 if charge of corruption is established.
The Karnataka High court observed that the proviso to rule
8 states that in the absence of special or adequate reasons to the
contrary mentioned in the order, punishment to be imposed if charge
of corruption is proved, is one of those specified in clauses (vi) to
(viii). Thus, by assigning special or adequate reasons, a lesser penalty
can also be imposed. It is only in case no reasons are assigned,
second part which stipulates imposition of penalty specified in clause
(vi) to (viii) viz compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal operates.
Thus, disciplinary authority has got choice to impose any one of
punishments provided in rule 8. The High Court held that there is no
merit in the plea that the provision is ultra vires.
It was contended by the petitioner that acceptance of illegal
gratification is not proved to the hilt. The High Court observed that the
court is not acting as an appellate Court and it is impermissible for the
High Court to substitute its finding on reappraisal of entire evidence.
The affidavit alleged to have been given by T.M. Subramanyam has