Petitioner challenged Tribunal order dismissing her applications for pension/retirement benefits due to lack of clean hands based on suspected register tampering. High Court declined interference pending disciplinary outcome but directed expedited conclusion of proceedings.
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 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. DESAI
WRIT PETITION Nos.36402-403/2018 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN :
SMT. M. MAHALAKSHMI W/O SRINVIASA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT, J. BRANCH OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA HIGHER EDUCATION AND J. DIVISION & EXAMINATION BOARD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003.
RESIDING AT NO.705, 7TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 041.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH BANDI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
(BY SRI: T.P. SREENIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to the common impugned order dated 02/02/2018 in Application Nos.3301/2017 and 2329/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and quash the same as illegal without application of mind and Gross Violation of
3
Principles of natural justice and Gross Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and allow the prayers of the petitioner in Application Nos.3301/2017 and 2329/2017 and etc.
These Writ petitions coming on for ‘Preliminary hearing in B group’ this day, S. Sujatha J., made the following:
O R D E R
These petitions are directed against the common impugned order dated 02.02.2018 passed in Application No.3301/2017 connected with Application No.2329/2017 made by the Tribunal whereby the applications are dismissed holding that the applicant has not come before the Tribunal with clean hands.
4
cadre of First Division Assistant (FDA) approached the Tribunal challenging the said action of respondents.
Verification Committee the petitioner has made a representation to the 2nd respondent to give her promotion with effect from the date on which Sri. Muniraju was given promotion to the post of FDA ie., with effect from 04.01.1992. Accordingly, she was given promotion on 03.12.2016 as Superintendent from the cadre of FDA, but with prospective effect. On the representation made by the petitioner to consider her caste on par with Sri. Muniraju, the same was rejected on the ground that she was not appointed under ST category. Consequently, the promotion given to her from the cadre of FDA to the cadre of Superintendent with prospective effect was also withdrawn.
5
4. The petitioner made an endeavor before
the Tribunal contending that she belongs to Jenu Kuruba/ ST category and action of the respondents in withdrawing her promotion is bad in law. The Tribunal after summoning the original Admission Register of the petitioner from the Government Mixed Primary School, Lakshmipuram, Mysuru and the original Service Register found that the word “Jenu” prima facie appears to have been interpolated in the Service Register as well as in the Admission Register though the earlier entry was “Kuruba”. It is also noticed from the Admission Register that the word “Jenu” was written in different ink and in different hand writing.
5. Having examined the original registers, the
Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. Tampering the Service Register being prima facie evident as observed by the Tribunal and the
6
departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner being pending against the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal.
observations made herein above or the Tribunal will not influence the Disciplinary Authority in taking a decision in the matter in accordance with law. Since the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the retired petitioner relating to this aspect of the matter, we direct the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the same in accordance with law in an expedite manner.
These petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
LL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner approached it without clean hands due to suspected tampering with service registers?
What direction should be issued to the Disciplinary Authority regarding pending proceedings against the petitioner?
SMT. M. MAHALAKSHMI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
S. SUJATHA
P.N. DESAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
