Disposed

B N Jagadeesh v. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2012WP/35658/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking an order to close departmental proceedings and direct promotion. The court recorded the respondent's undertaking to conclude the enquiry within four months, directing that the petitioner be promoted if found not guilty thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be promoted in accordance with law if found not guilty after the respondent concludes the enquiry within four months.

B N Jagadeesh Vs Bruhath Bangalore… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.35658/2012(S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

B N JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE SRI D R NARASIMHA MURTHY NO.374, 7TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS TEACHERS COLONY I STAGE NAGARABHAVI BANGALORE - 560 072

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

( BY SMT. LAKSHMI HOLLA, ADV.,)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BY ITS COMMISSIONER N R SQUARE BANGALORE 560 002

¶13

2 THE COMMISSIONER (ADMN.)., BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N R SQUARE BANGALORE - 560 002

¶14

3 THE ADDL COMMISSIONER (ADMN.) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N R SQUARE

¶15

¶16

BANGALORE 560 002

¶17

4 THE DY .COMMISSIONER (ADMN.)., BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N R SQUARE BANGALORE - 560 002

¶18

5 THE JT. COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 048

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

( BY SRI.M R SHAILENDRA, ADV.,)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO CLOSE THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.5.10 OF THE R5 AT ANNX-D, DIRECT THE R1 TO PROMOTE THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HIS JUNIORS WERE PROMOTED AS CLAIMED IN THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.8.11 AS AT ANNX-F. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.5.10 OF THE R5 VIDE ANNX-D

¶22

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner has sought for a direction to the first

¶25

respondent to close the departmental proceedings initiated

¶26

against him pursuant to the communication of the 5th

¶27

¶28

respondent produced at Annexure D.

¶29

Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P. No.24161/2012 inter alia for mandamus directing the first respondent – Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, BBMP) to promote him from the date on which his juniors were promoted in terms of his representation dated 22.08.2011.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that, though he is senior, in the name of pendency of an enquiry, he has been denied promotion from time to time. Petitioner was kept under suspension from 2009 and the departmental enquiry ultimately culminated in passing of the order dated 01.09.2010 holding that the charges are not proved. This Court, having regard to the circumstances, had directed the respondent – Corporation to open the sealed cover and if the departmental enquiry had concluded and if there was no other impediment and if the petitioner was found eligible

¶31

¶32

for promotion, to promote him.

¶33

Since the petitioner`s case was not considered and another departmental enquiry has been initiated against him, he has again approached this Court inter alia alleging that initiation of departmental enquiry and not proceeding with the enquiry for about two years is nothing but, a mala fide action to deprive him promotion.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent - BBMP

¶35

submits that, when a departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, Rules do not permit the respondent to promote him. However, he submits that at any rate, departmental enquiry will be concluded within four months and the enquiry officer has already been appointed.

¶36

Having regard to the background of this case, if the petitioner is subjected to repeated enquiries only to deny him promotion, certainly, it will amount to mala fide

¶37

¶38

exercise of power.

¶39

However, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that, the enquiry officer has been appointed

¶40

and enquiry will be concluded before the expiry of four months from today.

¶41

The said submission is placed on record.

¶42

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶43

The respondent - BBMP shall conclude the enquiry, if any, pending against the petitioner within four months. In case

¶44

the petitioner is found not guilty, he should be promoted in accordance with the Law.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

sma

B N Jagadeesh v. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B N Jagadeesh v. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nalini Shivashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

S Narasimha Murthy Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Sri a T Chandru Vs the Superintending Engineer

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Vijayakumar

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramesh Prabhu

The Member Secretary Vs Sri. Mallikarjuna Murthy