Allowed

Mr v. Jagannatha v Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020WP/25699/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed a disciplinary notice issued de novo against a petitioner on allegations identical to those previously investigated and dismissed. Relying on the principle that only one inquisition is permitted per misconduct, the bench held the second inquiry impermissible and unconstitutional.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge sheet dated 08.05.2018 set aside; writ petition allowed; petitioner entitled to consequential benefits withheld due to pending proceedings.

Mr v Jagannatha Vs Karnataka Industrial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.25699/2018 (S – RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR.V.JAGANNATHA S/O Y.VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶9

... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶10

AND

¶11

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH & 5^TH FLOORS, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶12

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶13

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 08.05.2018 ISSUED THE PETITIONER UNDER REGULATION 61 OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD SERVICE REGULATIONS (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO BY THE RESPONDENT ETC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the notice/charge sheet dated 08.05.2018 issued against the petitioner seeking to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

¶18

Facts that are germane to the filing of the present petition are that, the petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as a Development Officer at the Zonal office, Gulbarga between 11.03.2009 and 01.06.2012 . A charge sheet came to be issued against him on 22.05.2013 invoking Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’ for short)

¶19

¶20

alleging that the petitioner had committed certain misconduct in allotment of industrial plots and had troubled M/s Nagesh Flour Mills. It was further alleged that the petitioner had executed sale deeds without there being an approval from the single window committee.

¶21

The petitioner on receipt of the charge sheet, gave a detailed statement of defence refuting every allegation made against him in the charge sheet, explaining in detail why he is not guilty of any of the allegations leveled against him. Not being satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority went on to appoint an inquiry officer to hold enquiry proceedings against him. On conclusion of the proceedings, the inquiry officer held the petitioner not guilty of the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and passed an order exercising powers under Regulations 58 and 59 of the service regulations of the Board, exonerating the petitioner of all the charges

¶22

¶23

leveled and dropped the disciplinary proceedings by his order dated 25.03.2015.

¶24

After about five years after the closure of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, notice dated 08.05.2018 was again issued against the petitioner enclosing a charge sheet on the very same allegations that were leveled against the petitioner in the earlier charge sheet wherein he had been exonerated. It is challenging this charge sheet and initiation of a de novo inquiry, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

Heard Sri.Rajeswara.P.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned charge sheet is on the very same allegations that were inquired into earlier, in which the petitioner had been exonerated and all the proceedings were dropped against him. Since the petitioner came

¶27

¶28

within the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher cadre, the present charge sheet is deliberately issued to deny the right of the petitioner for consideration of promotion to the post of Additional Chief Development Officer. He would further contend de novo inquiry on the very same allegations is impermissible in law.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing

¶30

for the Board would contend that the regulations of the Board did not stop the Board from issuing a charge sheet and inquiring into allegations against an employee of the Board. He would contend that there is no illegality in the impugned charge sheet even if it be allegations that were contained in the earlier charge sheet as, few aspects of misconduct had been left out in the earlier charge sheet.

¶31

I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶32

¶33

The petitioner was working as a Development

¶34

Officer at the Zonal office, Gulbarga between 11.03.2009 and 01.06.2012. On certain allegations that the petitioner had not taken steps to recover revised cost from 13 allotees of industrial units and had executed sale deeds without there being clearance from the single window committee, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a charge sheet on 22.05.2013 under Rule 11 of the said rules.

¶35

The charges against the petitioner are as follows:

¶36

DgÆÃ¥É À – 1:

¶37

²æÃ.«.dUÀ£Áßxï, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11-3-2009 jAzÀ

¶38

¢£ÁAPÀ: 01-06-2012gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ F »AzÉ UÀÄ®âUÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀÝ ªÉÄ: £ÁUÉÃ±ï ¥ÉÆèÃgï«Ä¯ï, UÀÄ®âUÁð ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀ 13 PÉÊUÁjPÉUÀ½UÉ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛ¢ÝÃgÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁz ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀiË®åzÀ ¨ÁQ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß À

¶39

¶40

ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀ PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¸ÀzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄßÀ KPÀ UÀªÁQë ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ MA§vÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀjAzÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉUÉ ¥ÁægÀA©üPÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀnÖ¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÆÀ CªÀgÀ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀPÉÌ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¤ÃqÀzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀjUÉ KPÀ ¥ÀQëÃAiÀÄªÁV ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀ°è ¤®ðPÀëöåvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝj vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶41

F ¤ªÀÄä ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀgÀPÁj £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ¸À®èzÀ

¶42

ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉÃªÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1966gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ zÀÄªÀðvÀð£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀ PÁgÀt PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉÃªÁ (ªÀVðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«) ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1957gÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 11 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀÄªÄ 58gÀ À C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä CºÀðgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj..”

¶43

The petitioner gave his reply to the said charge sheet which was found to be unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority who went on to appoint an inquiry officer to inquire into the allegations. The inquiry officer having inquired into the allegations found that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer, exonerated the petitioner and dropped the disciplinary proceedings against him. Thus, the charge

¶44

¶45

sheet dated 22.05.2013 ended in exoneration of the petitioner.

¶46

After about five years of exoneration of the petitioner in the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings another set of disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the respondent-Board by issuance of a charge sheet on 08.05.2018 , on the very same allegations. The allegations that were leveled against the petitioner in the earlier charge sheet were that the petitioner had not taken steps to recover revised cost from 13 allottees of industrial plots and had troubled M/s Nagesh Flour mill at the time when he was functioning as a Development Officer at the Zonal office Gulbarga. The allegations in the impugned charge sheet issued after five years are for the same period and are the same allegations.

¶47

The allegations against the petitioner in the impugned charge sheet are as follows:

¶48

“ P£ÁðlPÀ PÀ ÊUÁjPÁ ¥É æzÀ Ã±Á©üªÉ È¢Þ ªÀ ÄAqÀ ½, ¨À AUÉ ¼À ÆgÀ ÄÀ

¶49

C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ – 1

¶50

¶51

²æÃ.«.dU£ÁßxÀ ï, C©üªÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀ ÄvÀ ÄÛ PÁAiÀ Äð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀ ÄAvÀ gÀ À – 2, P.PÀ Ê.¥É æ.C.ªÀ ÄAqÀ ½, ¨À AUÉ ¼À ÆgÀ Ä EªÀ gÀ Ä F »AzÀ C©üªÉ È¢Ý À C¢üPÁj ºÁUÆ PÁAiÀ Äð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀ ÄAvÀ gÀ , PÀ ®§ÄgÀ V E°è PÀ vÀ ðªÀ å À ¤ªð»¸À ÄwÛzÀ Ý CªÀ ¢üAiÀ Ä°è EªÀ gÀ «gÀ ÄzÀ Ý ªÀ iÁqÀ ¯ÁVgÀ ÄªÀ DgÀ ÆÃ¥É .À

¶52

DgÆÃ¥É À – 1:

¶53

²æÃ.«.dUÀ£Áßxï, C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀ – 2, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11-3-2009 jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01-06-2012gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ PÀ®§ÄgÀV ªÀ®AiÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý C¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄ:£ÁUÉÃ±ï ¥ÉÆèÃgï«Ä¯ï, PÀ®§ÄgÀV ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ 13 PÉÊPÁjPÉUÀ½UÉ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉ DzÉÃ±À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛÃ¢ÝÃgÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀiË®åzÀ ¨ÁQ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÆ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀ PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¸ÀzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ f¯Áè ªÀÄlÖzÀ KPÀUÀªÁQë ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ªÀÄqÉAiÀÄzÉ, MA§vÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀjAzÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉUÉ ¥ÁægÀA©üPÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀnÖ¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀPÉÌ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¤ÃqÀzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀjUÉ KPÀ¥ÀQëÃAiÀÄªÁV ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀ°è ¤®ðPÀëöåvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝj vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶54

ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 58gÀ ¸ÀàµÀÖ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj.

¶55

¶56

F ¤ªÀÄä ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÉÊUÁjUÁ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±Á©üªÀÈ¢Ý ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 58gÀ ¸ÀàµÀÖ G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 59gÀr ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÝ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ M¼À¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶57

¸À»

¶58

ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀuÁ¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üÃPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ ªÀÄAqÀ½, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.”

¶59

Perusal of the impugned charge sheet dated 08-

¶60

05-2018 in juxtaposition to the earlier charge sheet dated 22-05-2013 would make it unmistakably clear that they are verbatim similar. The earlier charge sheet had ended in his exoneration .Thus, it is a clear case of a denovo inquiry now initiated against the petitioner on the very same allegations of the year 2013, which had ended in his exoneration .

¶61

It is trite law that there can be only one set of disciplinary proceedings on a particular misconduct. Repeated inquiries on the same set of misconduct is clearly impermissible in law. If such de novo inquiries are permitted on the same misconduct notwithstanding an

¶62

¶63

earlier exoneration, it will amount to an open ended power to the employer and become arbitrary. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand , (2012) 3

¶64

SCC 580 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

¶65

“27. In the present case, a charge memo was issued and served on the appellant. A reading of the charge memo does not contain any reference to the proceedings of the Standing Committee at all. It is also not found as to whether the earlier proceedings has been revived in accordance with the procedure prescribed. In fact, after receipt of the charge memo, the appellant, in his reply statement, had brought to the notice of the enquiry officer that on the same set of charges, a notice had been issued earlier and after receipt of his explanation dated 21-12-1994, the Standing Committee, after accepting his explanation had dropped the entire proceedings and the same had been communicated to him by the Registrar General of the High Court by his letter dated 2-2-1995. In spite of his explanation in the reply statement filed, the

¶66

¶67

enquiry officer has proceeded with the enquiry proceedings and after completion of the same, has submitted his report which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no justification for conducting a second enquiry on the very charges, which have been dropped earlier. Even though the principle of double jeopardy is not applicable, the law permits only disciplinary proceedings and not harassment. Allowing such practice is not in the interest of public service. In the circumstance, we cannot sustain the impugned order reverting the appellant to the lower post.

¶68

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex

¶69

Court in the afore extracted judgment and the facts obtaining in the case on hand, there can be no justification for the Board to initiate another set of disciplinary proceedings on the very same misconduct which had ended in exoneration of the petitioner.

¶70

¶71

Therefore, the impugned charge sheet dated

¶72

08.05.2018 is contrary to law and is unsustainable. For the

¶73

aforesaid reasons the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶76

(ii) The impugned notice/charge sheet dated

¶77

08.05.2018 is set aside.

¶78

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits that were withheld on the ground of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings in terms of the impugned charge sheet.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

bkp CT:MJ

Mr v. Jagannatha v Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr v. Jagannatha v Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Board of Trustees, Epf Vs M/S. Venkateswara Packagings

Smt Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Annegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Manjunatha N Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.