The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State challenging a Tribunal order that set aside a departmental penalty imposed on a respondent due to a ten-year delay in disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the delay was inordinate and unexplained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.18036 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru-560 001.
...Petitioner (By Sri B Rajendra Prasad, HCGP) AND Smt. Sharadamba N W/o Rangaswamy Aged about 52 years Working as Section Officer Dept. of Planning and Statistics M S Building Bengaluru-560 001. Residing at No.50, 12th Cross Magadi Bengaluru-560023.
….Respondent
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 11th
2
March, 2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in Application No.8648 of 2018 vide Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, INDIRESH J., made the following:
O R D E R
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th March, 2020 passed in Application No.8648 of 2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 06th August, 2018 (Annexure-A20) and directed the official respondent to pay all the consequential benefits including the monetary benefits and further directed the respondents therein to examine the promotional aspect of the applicant.
3
Officer and thereafter was promoted as Under Secretary on 31st December, 2012. It is further averred in the Application that, applicant was served with Articles of Charge on 27th December, 2006 (Annexure-A1) imputing certain charges of misconduct and pursuant to same, applicant made reply as per Annexure-A2. It is further stated that the official respondent has issued order dated 05th May, 2008, seeking explanation from the Applicant. Since the Applicant has not submitted her explanation, the respondent initiated Departmental Enquiry against the Applicant, for which the Applicant has submitted her explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Applicant, respondent authorities decided to conduct an enquiry under Rule 11(2) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and thereby appointed one M.R. Mahesh Kumar, Under Secretary to Government-I and 2, Department of Planning, as Enquiry Officer as per Order dated 15th May, 2008 (Annexure-A3). It is further stated that, Enquiry Officer has issued notice dated 19th June, 2008 fixing the Enquiry on 26th June, 2008 and thereafter, another notice was issued on 07th August, 2008 fixing the enquiry on 12th August, 2008. However,
4
no proceedings were held on the aforementioned dates. Thereafter, the official respondent has issued another order dated 19th January, 2009 appointing one Sri B. Chikkaraju, Under Secretary-I and 2, Planning Department as an Enquiry Officer, and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted report to the respondent-authorities. Thereafter, second showcause notice was issued to the Applicant along with the copy of the enquiry report, for which the Applicant sent reply. It is further averred that the respondent authorities, without considering the reply made by the Applicant, proceeded to impose the penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect as per the Order dated 06th August, 2018. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 06th August, 2018 and not considering the case of the Applicant for promotion to the higher post, the Applicant has approached the Tribunal in Application No.8648 of 2018.
5
enquiry officer and therefore, the impugned order dated 06th August, 2018 requires to be affirmed. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 11th March, 2020 allowed the Application, consequently, set aside the order dated 06th August, 2018 (Annnexure-A20). Being aggrieved by the order dated 11th March, 2020 passed by the Tribunal, respondent-State has preferred this writ petition.
6
passing the order of punishment by the Government after receiving the enquiry report and therefore he contended that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference in this writ petition.
7
(Anexure-A10), the Government has issued notice demoting the applicant, for which, the applicant made a detailed reply on 23rd May, 2014 (Annexure-A11) and consequently, the respondentState withdrew the promotion made to the Applicant by Order dated 11th July, 2014 (Annexure-A12). Subsequently, the Government has issued show-cause notice dated 28th November, 2014 seeking explanation from the Applicant, for which, the Applicant made a detailed reply dated 01st April, 2014, contending that, there is a delay of six years in issuing the Articles of charge and submission of enquiry report after eight years is contrary to the law declared by this Court and the Apex Court and as such, requested the Government to exonerate from the charges leveled against her.
for determination in this writ petition are:
8
“16. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the
9
mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. ”
“9. … It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, malafides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the fact-, of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against
10
the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. ”
11
was appointed on 19th June, 2008 and penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect was issued on 06th August, 2018, after lapse of ten years, is contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases.
12
inordinate and unexplained delay of ten years in initiating the enquiry proceedings.
In the result, petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
SB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ten-year delay in issuing the second show-cause notice and concluding departmental proceedings violates principles of natural justice?
Whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order allowing the applicant's application despite the massive delay requires interference?
Whether the High Court should quash the Tribunal's order set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.V. BIJLANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSReferred¶37
M.V. BIJLANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2006)5 SCC 88 · Who else cites this
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. CHAMANLAL GOYALReferred¶41
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. CHAMANLAL GOYAL (1995)2 SCC 570 · Who else cites this
P.V. MAHADEVAN v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARDApplied¶45
P.V. MAHADEVAN v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD AIR 2006 SC 207 · Who else cites this
The State of Karnataka
Smt. Sharadamba N
S. SUJATHA
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
