Disposed

Smt. Anuradha v. the Housing Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2020WP/41474/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the recommendation by the Upa-Lokayuktha for compulsory retirement and refused to supply documents. The Court held that the disciplinary authority must examine the petitioner's reply on merits before passing any order, refraining from deciding the case on merit now.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to examine the petitioner's reply and pass appropriate orders.

Smt. Anuradha Vs the Housing Commissioner — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.41474/2018(GM-KLA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. ANURADHA W/O LATE Y.K. HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, RECOVERY SECTION III FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009. R/AT NO.33, I MAIN ROAD, 12^TH CROSS, J.C.NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, BANGALORE-560 086. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER DISCILINARY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

2 . ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRY-4 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

3 . UPA-LOKAYUKTHA - 1 REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S. BUILDINGS BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPL P.P FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS DATED:10.04.2018 VIDE ANNEX-M PASSED BY THE R-2 TO PERUSE THE SAME AND CALL FOR RECORDS IN RECOMMENDATION OF LOKAYUKTHA DATED:13.04.2018 VIDE ANNEX-N PASSED BY R-3 TO PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH BY AN ORDER OF WRIT OF CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶21

“(a) Call for records in No.Lok/ARE4/ENQ-298/2011 dated 10.04.2018 (vide Annexure-M) passed by the 2^nd respondent to peruse the same.

¶22

(b) Call for records in recommendation of lokayuktha in No.Lok/Inq/14A/298/2011/ARE-4 dated 13.4.2018 (vide Annexure-N) passed by the 3^rd respondent to peruse the same and quash by an order of Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ

¶23

¶24

¶25

4/ENQ-298/2011 dated 10.04.2018 (vide Annexure-M) passed by the 2^nd respondent in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶26

We have heard the arguments of Sriyuths

¶27

Jeevan Kumar.B.S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and

¶28

Venkatesh.S.Arabatti, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the records.

¶29

On a complaint lodged by one Sri.N.G.Anil

¶30

Kumar alleging that to execute the sale deed in his favour petitioner was demanding a bribe of Rs.3,000/-, report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act dated 25.8.2011 came to be submitted by Investigating Officer. The appropriate Government by order dated 17.9.2011 appointed an Enquiry Officer to investigate into the matter and on being served with the Imputation of charges, enquiry was commenced and Enquiry Officer by his report dated 10.4.2018

¶31

¶32

(Annexure-M) held that charges alleged against the petitioner were proved and respondent No.3 recommended to first respondent that petitioner should be compulsorily retired by a recommendation dated 13.4.2018 vide Annexure ‘N’, pursuant to which, disciplinary cum competent authority issued show cause notice on 4.6.2018 Annexure ‘P’ upon which, petitioner sought for certain documents and on account of nonfurnishing of said documents, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.27966/2018 which came to be disposed of on 3.7.2018 vide Annexure ‘R’ directing respondents to consider the representation and convey the decision to the petitioner in an expeditious manner, with a rider that disciplinary authority should not precipitate the matter till such decision was taken. Pursuant to the said direction, on 27.8.2018 the petitioner was furnished with all the documents. It is on receipt of said documents petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition contending inter alia that Enquiry Officer had not considered the written reply – objections filed by the petitioner during the

¶33

¶34

course of enquiry and without examination of these aspects an enquiry report had been submitted. As such, challenging the enquiry report dated 10.4.2018 and the recommendation dated 13.4.2018 Annexures M and N, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of the same.

¶35

The thrust of the arguments of Sri.Jeevan Kumar.B.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is for the similar charges criminal proceedings had already been initiated against the petitioner in Spl. C.C.No.126/2009 and the jurisdictional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 6.8.2015 Annexure ‘D’ had acquitted the petitioner-accused and continuation of the domestic enquiry proceedings on same set of charges was not called for, which fact had been highlighted during the enquiry proceedings and same having been ignored had resulted in miscarriage in administration of justice. Hence, assailing the enquiry report as well as recommendation of Upa-Lokayuktha, present writ petition is filed for quashing of the same.

¶36

¶37

He would reiterate the grounds urged in the writ petition and very heavily relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129 .

¶38

Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that claim of petitioner is premature inasmuch as objections to the second show cause notice having filed, same has to receive the attention of the competent authority and till such time, petitioner cannot have any grievance. Hence, he prays for rejection of petitioner.

¶39

Having heard the learned Advocates

¶40

appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we notice that on receipt of the documents on 28.8.2018, petitioner seems to have not submitted his reply to the second show cause notice dated 8.6.2018. However, by representation dated 19.6.2018 and 22.6.2018, two months time was sought for to submit reply on the premise that documents referred to in the enquiry proceedings have not been received. It is in this

¶41

¶42

background, as already noticed hereinabove, petitioner had approached the writ Court in W.P.No.27966/2018, which came to be disposed of on 3.7.2018 directing respondent No.1 herein to furnish the documents and accordingly, documents has been furnished on 27.8.2018 and thereafter, reply has been submitted by the petitioner on 10.9.2018. If it were to be so, then necessarily based on the reply submitted and considering all other relevant material that would be available before respondent No.1, it is for the competent and disciplinary authority to take a call or decide as to whether objections filed by the petitioner is to be accepted or otherwise. In the event of this Court were to undertake an exercise of examining the claim of the petitioner vis a vis with reference to the enquiry report and the findings recorded by the Special Court adjudicating Spl.CC.No.126/2009, then necessarily, rights of either of the parties would be prejudiced.

¶43

It is trite law that in a criminal case what is required to be proved by the prosecution is beyond

¶44

¶45

reasonable doubt, whereas in a domestic enquiry, it is preponderance and probabilities of the case which would suffice. Hence, we desist from expressing any opinion with regard to the claim of the petitioner as urged in the enquiry proceedings and also in the reply submitted on 10.9.2018, which is yet to receive the attention of first respondent. In that view of the matter, it would suffice to observe that respondent No.1 would be at liberty to examine the reply submitted by the petitioner on 10.9.2018, by taking into consideration all the relevant materials available before it and pass appropriate orders thereon. It is needless to state, in the event of any order adverse to the interest of petitioner being passed, petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same by urging all grounds including the grounds urged in the present writ petition, inasmuch as, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

¶46

¶47

Sri.Venkatesh.S.Arabatti, learned Special Public

¶48

Prosecutor appearing for third respondent is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks from today.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

bkp

Smt. Anuradha v. the Housing Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anuradha v. the Housing Commissioner

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

Jeethendra Kumar Rajan Vs Dr a S Deshpande

M/S Gurukiran Enterprises Vs Mr. Anil Kumar

Mr. P. Shivaram Bhat Vs Smt. Jyothi Lakshmi

Sri K Prasad Vs Authorised Officer

Sri. J K Nagaraj Vs the Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Shri M K Yashvantha Alva Vs the Authorized Officer