Dismissed

Shri. Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2021WP/3271/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the KSAT order refusing to entertain a complaint regarding disciplinary proceedings due to delay. The High Court held there was no merit in the writ petition, dismissing it as the petitioner lacked a cause of action before the final outcome. Liberty reserved for future contentions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to urge all contentions after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry.

Shri. Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.3271 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI NAGARAJU S/O SHRI RAMANJANAPPA, AGE: 53 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION, SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT R/AT NO.632, 'SHIVA KRUPA', 11^TH CROSS, SIT EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572101, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. K. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

¶15

¶16

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING) PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶17

THE HON'BLE LOKAYUKTA REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1, 2 AND 4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1018/2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 29.06.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS’ THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This writ petition is filed challenging the correctness of the Order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter

¶25

¶26

referred to as 'KSAT' for short) in Application No.1018/2017. The Tribunal refused to entertain a challenge to the entrustment order dated 03.07.2012 under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957' for short) as well as the recommendation of the UpaLokayukta dated 04.11.2016 and the 2^nd show cause notice dated 05.01.2017. Instead, the Tribunal reserved liberty to the petitioner herein to challenge the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

¶27

The petitioner herein was working as Junior Engineer in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor irrigation Sub-Division, Tumkur. A contractor by name Mr.Gurumurthy Prasad, who was entrusted with executing a 100 meters drainage work under the Mahathma Ganghi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme was entitled to a sum of Rs.36,525/- from the Gram Panchayath. In order to issue a certificate of

¶28

¶29

completion of the work, the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.7,000/- and received Rs.5,500/- and the balance was to be paid on 25.04.2011. The complainant lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police on 25.04.2011, who registered a case in Cr.No.5/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The UpaLokayukta not been satisfied with the explanation, submitted a report to the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The respondent No.4 entrusted the enquiry to the UpaLokayukta under Rule 14-A of the 'KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957. An article of charge was issued on 04.12.2012 and the enquiry officer submitted a report on 02.11.2016 holding that the charges were proved. The Upa-Lokayukta addressed a recommendation on 04.11.2016 to impose penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 8 (viii) of the 'KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957. After receipt of the recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta and the report of

¶30

¶31

the enquiry officer, the respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner.

¶32

The petitioner challenged the entrustment order issued by respondent No.4 under Rule 14-A of the 'KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957 as well as the recommendation of the Lokayukta and the second show cause notice issued by filing an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the petitioner has to avail the opportunity of establishing his innocence and until a punitive order is passed, the petitioner would not have a firm cause of action to challenge it before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that the application filed by the petitioner was highly belated and there was no explanation offered for the delay.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶35

submitted that the second show cause notice issued by respondent No.1 was clearly in violation of Rule 15 of the

¶36

¶37

KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957, since the respondent No.4 ought to have first applied its mind whether the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 should be imposed on him and thereafter, transfer the proceedings of the enquiry to the respondent No.1 who was entitled to pass orders thereon as he deemed necessary.

¶38

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of MINISTRY OF DEFENCE VS. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 and UNION OF INDIA VS. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA reported in

¶39

(2006) 12 SCC 28 has delineated the scope of interference in respect of an article of charge issued in the course of departmental proceedings. The Tribunal has carefully considered the case of the petitioner and has thoughtfully dismissed the application and reserved liberty to urge all contentions after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry. Since there is no explanation offered for the delay in approaching the Tribunal, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the application.

¶40

¶41

In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is reserved liberty to urge all the contentions after conclusion of the departmental enquiry.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

NR/-

Shri. Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

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

Eranna H Vs Uco Bank

India Awake for Transparency Vs Mr Azim Hasham Premji

V Nandan Kamath Vs Muralinath Gupta

Dr H.R.Nanjundappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Smart Infosoft and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs State of Karnataka