Allowed

Sri. Kashinath Rao Rasure v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2021WP/30020/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging a writ order dismissing a pension deduction petition. The court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to reconsider it, holding the Tribunal erred in not stating reasons for disagreeing with a favorable Enquiry Report.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; impugned Tribunal order dated 24.03.2016 set aside; matter restored to Tribunal to reconsider afresh.

Sri. Kashinath Rao Rasure Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

W.P.No.30020/2016 (S – KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI KASHINATH RAO RASURE S/O SRI ANNAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.), DIVISION NO.2, ZILLA PANCHAYATH SUB-DIVISION, BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR DISTRICT-585327

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

2 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER COMMUNICATIONS & BUILDINGS, (SOUTH), K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

3 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH SUB-DIVISION, BASAVAKALYANA, BIDAR DISTRICT-585327

¶16

4 . THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

5 . THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585327. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R-1, R-2, R-4 & R-5; R-3 SERVED.)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2005 PASSED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A6 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.8729/2005 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

¶24

25.01.2005 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure –

¶25

A6) insofar as it relates to the petitioner and the order dated 24.03.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Application No.8729/2005.

¶26

Briefly stated the facts are that on

¶27

14.02.1958, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor

¶28

in the then Public Works Department. In the month of June 1994, he was given in-charge post of Assistant

¶29

¶30

Executive Engineer, Basavakalyana. While working so, he was authorized to indent for supply of materials/equipments required for the works taken up in the Basavakalyan Sub-Division. The petitioner retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and his pension was also fixed.

¶31

A show-cause notice dated 01.04.1997 was

¶32

served on the petitioner imputing three charges, about committing of irregularities during his service and cooperated to misuse of Government fund to which the petitioner gave reply on 04.07.1997 denying the charges alleged against him and requested to drop the proceedings. However, the respondent No.1 has appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire the charges alleged against the petitioner and another. Enquiry Officer after recording evidence of witnesses, analyzing the material on record has submitted Enquiry Report dated 03.02.2003 stating that the charges leveled against the

¶33

¶34

petitioner are not proved. Not accepting the same, the Disciplinary Authority caused to issue second showcause notice dated 21.07.2003 to which the petitioner submitted a reply to drop the proceedings accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order dated 24.01.2005 holding that the charges alleged against the petitioner are proved and imposed a penalty of deduction of 25% of the pensionary benefits permanently which was the subject matter of the Application No.8729/2005 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the application. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner made an endeavor to point out the error found in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as upholding order of the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel has placed the copy of the reply dated 01.03.2004 said to have filed to the second show-cause notice.

¶36

- 5 -

¶37

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

¶38

supporting the impugned orders argued that there is no substance in the writ petition and the same deserves to be rejected.

¶39

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶40

The main reason on which the Tribunal has

¶41

dismissed the application is that the applicant has not mentioned any specific lapse in the enquiry proceedings which indicates denial of natural justice or can be called an irregularity which vitiates the procedure. It is obvious that the enquiry report being in favour of the petitioner, there was no scope for him to raise such plea against the enquiry report. The Tribunal referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶42

National Fertilizers Ltd., & another vs. P.K. Khanna reported in AIR 2005 SC 3742 and Managing

¶43

¶44

Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 , held that when Disciplinary Authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to restate the reasoning, which indeed is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the Disciplinary Authority has not accepted the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer. In the present scenario, it was necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to give reasons for differing from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer as per the Enquiry Report furnished which indeed was favourable to the petitioner. It is merely on this ground, the application being dismissed by the Tribunal, we are unable to approve the same.

¶45