This writ petition challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order quashing removal punishment for an employee subjected to second enquiry on identical grounds within six months of the first order. The High Court found the Tribunal was justified and declined to interfere.
Admission of the writ petition was declined; no order as to costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.4359/2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 2 . THE COMMISSIONER FOR SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP )
AND
SRI NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O GANGABYRAIAH, SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RAMANAGARA.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.5160/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is arising out of the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.5160/2018 (Sri Nagaraju v. The State of Karnataka and another).
3
Tribunal stating that the charge sheet issued on 29.09.2011 and the charge sheet issued on 02.08.2004 are identical in nature and therefore, once he has been vexed earlier, he could not have been vexed twice as has been done by the respondent-State. The Tribunal has minutely compared both the charge sheets and in paragraphs-8 to 12 has held as
under:
"8. Learned Government Pleader for the Respondents contended that when the Joint Director of Land Records has visited the land, he noticed what are the illegalities committed by the applicant. Therefore, it was decided to initiate the enquiry as against the applicant for the 2nd time. After perusing the materials placed on record, I have carefully gone through the Articles of charges annexed to the document as per Annexure-A1 in respect of the 1st enquiry. So also, the Articles of charges annexed to Annexure-A3 in respect of the 2nd enquiry. The Articles of charges under Annexures-A1 and A3 are one and the same. When already there was an enquiry and the applicant was held guilty and has been ensured by way the punishment, the matter ends there. But after the lapse of 4 years, again the Articles of charge was issued to the applicant herein, which are one and the same of the 1st enquiry, is not permissible under law.
4
that the provision Rule 27 of KCS (CCA) Rules which reads as under along with the proviso;
"27. Review of the orders in disciplinary cases- The authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 lies, may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding, review any order passed in such a case and after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary, pass such orders as it deems fit, as if the Government Servant had preferred an appeal against such order.
Provided that no action under this rule shall be initiated more than six months after the date of the order to be reviewed."
Therefore, looking to these provisions, the authorities were vested with the right to review the orders after calling the records of the disciplinary proceedings and the consultation with the Commission is also permissible, if such a consultation is necessary. But looking to the proviso to the said Rule 27, time limit is, within 6 months to be done. But, here in this case, no such review has been done by the authorities so far as the 1st enquiry and its report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. It is only after the lapse of 4 years, the 2nd enquiry has been instituted by issuing Articles of charge against the applicant. Therefore, same is not permissible.
5
2nd time as against the applicant. Therefore, looking to all these aspects of the matter, the applicant has made out the case to interfere with the impugned order.
that the charge sheets Annexures-A1 and A3 are one and the same. This Court has also gone through the charge sheets and most of the charges are almost identical. The second charge sheet has been differently worded. Some of the charges which are part of the first charge sheet i.e., writing name of Muniyappa in the land records besides there being other charges do find place in the first charge sheet which resulted in censure and again in the second charge sheet, the charges were repeated. Nothing prevented the Government to issue fresh charge sheet containing altogether fresh charges without including the charges included in the first charge sheet. However, the same was not done and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the punishment order of
6
removal. This Court does not find reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the admission is declined.
No order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
TL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing punishment for double jeopardy due to identical charge sheets.
Whether Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India permit quashing an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Revenue
The Commissioner for Survey Settlement and Land Records
Sri Nagaraju
Satish Chandra Sharma
Nataraj Rangaswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
