Dismissed

The State of Karataka v. Sri. Subhash Vishram Naik

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2021WP/15592/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by State of Karnataka to quash Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order awarding punishment of reduction in pay to a police constable instead of dismissal. Bench declined to interfere and directed compliance.

What did the court decide?

Admission of writ petition declined. Petitioner-State directed to comply with the Tribunal's order within 30 days. Respondent-employee entitled to consequential benefits including notional fixation an

The State of Karataka Vs Sri. Subhash Vishram Naik — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.15592/2019 (S)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT

¶10

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

3 . THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE WEST RANGE, MANGALORE.

¶13

4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP)

¶16

AND

¶17

SRI. SUBHASH VISHRAM NAIK S/O VISHRAM, CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE, (UNDER ORDER OF COMPULSORY

¶18

¶19

R/O KOTEGOWDS, ANKOLA UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT)

¶20

...RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.324/2011 AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The present writ petition is arising out of the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.324/2011.

¶26

The facts of the case reveal that the respondentemployee was appointed on the post of Civil Police Constable on 27.02.1991 and on account of an allegation that he has committed misconduct, a charge sheet was issued on 14.09.2007. A criminal case was also registered as C.C. No.158/2006 and the judgment of conviction was passed on 26.06.2007, against which an appeal was preferred in Crl. A.No.108/2007 and the respondent employee was acquitted by the Appellate Court in respect of the offences punishable

¶27

¶28

under Sections 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The enquiry officer, after examining the witnesses, has submitted a report holding the charges as proved and thereafter, the disciplinary authority has passed an order on 10.12.2008 inflicting the punishment of dismissal against which an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, by an order dated 01.07.2009, has moderated the punishment by inflicting the punishment of compulsory retirement. The present respondent-employee, being aggrieved by the order of punishment, came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after taking into account the evidence on record, the report of the enquiry officer and the various other factors, has set aside the order of punishment by a punishment of reduction of his pay by five stages to be in force for five years with cumulative effect.

¶29

In the present case, three charges were levelled against the respondent. The first charge was in respect of non compliance of transfer order within time and the other two charges were in respect of demanding sexual favour from one Smt. Renuka, the wife of the complainant.

¶30

¶31

Normally, this Court would not have scanned the evidence available on record. However, as the learned Counsel for the respondent-employee has vehemently argued before this Court that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse findings, this Court has scanned the evidence on record. Smt. Renuka being the second wife of the complainant Sri Siddarama Maruthi Vaster has categorically stated that only the telephone number was given by the respondent employee to her. The facts also reveal that there was quarrel in the family of Siddarama Maruthi Vaster with his wife. Siddarama Maruthi Vaster is in fact having two wives. On account of a complaint lodged in respect of the quarrel which took place in the family, the present respondent went to their house, became friendly with Siddarama's family. The only allegation submission made by the witnesses against the respondent is that he gave his telephone number to the wife of Siddarama Maruthi Vaster. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Renuka as well as the other witnesses have turned hostile in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, the charge demanding sexual favour is not supported by the evidence. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in moderating the punishment order.

¶32

¶33

In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in

¶34

view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, admission is declined. The petitioner-State is directed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal positively within 30 days from today. The Tribunal has not directed the reinstatement of the respondent-employee with all consequential benefits. In the considered opinion of this Court as the respondent-employee was not granted backwages, the question of the granting backwages does not arise. However, he is entitled for all the consequential benefits including notional fixation of salary, leave, promotion etc. except backwages.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

The State of Karataka v. Sri. Subhash Vishram Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karataka v. Sri. Subhash Vishram Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. G. B. Manju Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. C. K. Krishnaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs M/S Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt. Ltd.

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Mayanna Gowda M

M/S Srinagara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer