Disposed

Sri S v. Ramesh v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2019WP/51079/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging Lokayukta inquiry proceedings including articles of charge. Court noted petitioner admitted working in relevant subdivision for one day and cannot be absolved of charges for that period, leaving merits open for enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without expressing opinion on merits; petitioner cannot be absolved of charges relating to the period of one day he admitted working in the sub-division.

Sri S v Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

W.P. NO.51079/2019 (GM-KLA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. S.V. RAMESH S/O LATE P. VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEERR, K-2, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD BANGALORE -560 009.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SATHIS K. BHAT ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

2 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

3 . THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-6 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1;

¶19

¶20

MS. RAKSHA DAFTARI, ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SRI. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDERS FROM THE RESPONDENTS QUASH THE IMPUGNED RECOMMENDATION DATED:13.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE R- 2 (ANNEXURE-E) IMPUGNED THE ORDER DATED:01.04.2015 PASSED BY R-1 (ANNXURE-F), THE IMPUGNED ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED:06.05.2015 ISSUED BY R-3 ANNEXURE-G AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:08.07.2019 PASSED BY R-3 ANNEXURE-K.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioner is seeking for quashing of

¶25

recommendation dated 13.01.2015 (Annexure-E) and impugned Government Order 01.04.2015 (Annexure-F) whereby first respondent is entrusted to UpaLokayuktha to conduct the enquiry, as well as articles of charge dated 06.05.2015 issued by respondent No.3 and order dated 08.07.2019 passed by respondent No.3 contending interalia that enquiry initiated against petitioner is totally without application of mind and it is under a misconception.

¶26

¶27

We have heard the arguments of Sri.Sathish K.Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.S.Bhagawat for petitioner and Sri.Kiran Kumar, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Smt. Raksha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the records.

¶28

Articles of charge issued to petitioner on

¶29

06.05.2015 would disclose that petitioner is alleged to have failed in his duty for not acting on the complaint dated 11.06.2009, whereunder it was brought to the notice of Office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP) stating that during the period 26.06.2007 to 02.08.2010 petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the said Office and being the jurisdictional engineer, petitioner was required to get debris cleared to avoid health hazards due to nasty pungent smell derived out of debris and having failed to clear the debris despite such complaint, it amounts to absolute lack of devotion to

¶30

¶31

duty and as such petitioner had committed an act unbecoming of a Government servant.

¶32

Petitioner on service of articles of charge, has

¶33

appeared before second respondent and has submitted his reply contending interalia that he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Cottonpet Sub-Division for only one (1) day i.e., 03.03.2010 to 04.03.2010 and at relevant point of time, Assistant Executive Engineer who was working was one Sri.R.Ramesh namely, he was working as Junior Engineer – BBMP Sub-Division and as such enquiry proceeded against him (petitioner) is required to be dropped and it may be proceeded against Sri. R. Ramesh, who was then working in said subdivision. Taking note of written statement filed by the petitioner, enquiry officer by order dated 01.08.2015 has noted said submission and has added said Sri. R. Ramesh as DGO-2 for being proceeded and articles of charge came to be issued to him. However, name of petitioner was not deleted and as such on account of amended Articles of Charge having been issued to Sri. R.

¶34

¶35

Ramesh, it is contended that name of petitioner is deemed to have been deleted. As such order now passed on 08.07.2019 that name of petitioner ought not have been deleted and petitioner had to face enquiry as per Government Order dated 01.04.2016 is on an erroneous assumption, is a contention which requires to be considered for the purposes of outright rejection, for simple reason that, on facts it is found that petitioner who was deputed as Assistant Executive Engineer. had worked in Cottonpet Sub-Division from 03.03.2010 to 04.03.2010 i.e., one day. Even according to his own admission in the statement made before Enquiry Officer dated 29.07.2015-Annexure-H. Thus, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he should be absolved of the charge insofar as it relates to dereliction of duty for the said period of one day. It is for the Enquiry Officer to take a call on this aspect namely as to whether there was dereliction of duty by petitioner as alleged in the Articles of Charge insofar as it related to the period 03.03.2010 to 04.03.2010 or for any other date/s.

¶36

¶37

With this observation, petition deserves to be

¶38

disposed of and accordingly it stands disposed of. It is made clear that third respondent-Enquiry Officer shall take note of the fact that petitioner has worked in Cottonpet Sub-Division from 03.03.2010 till afternoon of 04.03.2010 only while submitting the enquiry report. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on merits and contentions of both parties are kept open to be urged in pending enquiry.

¶39

SD/JUDGE SD/JUDGE

¶40

Sri S v. Ramesh v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S v. Ramesh v the State of Karnataka

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

Mr K Maregowda Vs Mr Jayaprakash

Sri. H. Krishne Gowda Vs Sri. G. Sridhar

Sri Rangaiah Vs Sri Rajanna

Sri L Sridhara Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Peoples Education Society Vs Dr.G.S.Prakash

Sri M R Janakiram (Huf) Vs the Assistant Commissioner