Dismissed

Y Vasantakumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2021WP/44281/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging orders of the State Administrative Tribunal. Upholding the Tribunal, the Court held that a writ petition cannot lie against a mere show cause notice or chargesheet as such notices do not infringe rights or constitute a final adverse order, citing Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.

What did the court decide?

Admission declined; writ petitions dismissed; connected writ petitions also dismissed.

Y Vasantakumar Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^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.47770 OF 2018 (S-KSAT) C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.44281 OF 2018 (S-KSAT), WRIT PETITION NO.47723 OF 2018 (S-KSAT)

¶10

IN W.P.NO.47770/2018:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

M.R. KULKARNI S/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O PLOT NO.7, SAMARTH HOUSING SOCIETY, LAKSHMINAGAR, HINDALAGA, BELGAUM DISTRICT.

¶13

S.G. MANE S/O GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RETD: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R/A 1^ST MAIN, II CROSS, VIDHYAGIRI, DHARWAD.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2; NOTICE SERVED ON PETITIONER NO.1)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 4^TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. UPALOKAYUKTA OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶19

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-3 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3; SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 IN APPLICATION NOS.5962-5963 OF 2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 PASSED IN APPLICATION NOS.5962-5963 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE (UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ALLOW APPLICATION NOS.5962-5963 OF 2018 AS PRAYED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶21

¶22

IN W.P.NO.44281/2018:

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

Y. VASANTAKUMAR S/O SUDARSHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, C/O DR. N.S. BALACHANDRA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, H.NO.78, VIRGO NAGAR POST, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 048.

¶25

R.V. SHIVARAI S/O BAPU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O PROJECT SUB-DIVISION, SOUNDATTI, CAMP: YERAGUTTI, BELGAUM DISTRICT.

¶26

RAJAKUMAR S/O BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O PLOT NO.10, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, BEHIND SHRI GURU COLLEGE, JEVARGI ROAD, KALBURGI -585102.

¶27

...PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 4^TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001

¶31

¶32

UPALOKAYUKTA OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶33

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-3 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. VENKATESH ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 IN APPLICATION NOs.5959-5961 OF 2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 IN APPLICATION NOs.5959-5961 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE (UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ALLOW APPLICATION NOs.5959-5961 OF 2018 AS PRAYED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶37

IN W.P.NO.47723 /2018:

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

L.C. GANIGER S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R/A PLOT NO.914, BUDA-SCHEME-40, KUVEMPUNAGAR, HINDALAGA-591108, TQ. AND DIST.: BELAGAVI

¶40

…PETITIONER

¶41

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶42

¶43

AND:

¶44

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 4^TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001

¶45

UPALOKAYUKTA OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶46

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-3 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI. B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. MALLIKARJUNA C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3; SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3)

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 IN APPLICATION NO.6629 OF 2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 IN APPLICATION NO.6629 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE (UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ALLOW APPLICATION NO.6629 OF 2018 AS PRAYED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶50

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in these cases, they are heard analogously together and a common order is being passed.

¶54

The facts of the case in W.P. No.47723/2018 are reproduced as under:

¶55

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2018 passed in Application No.6629/2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), Bengaluru.

¶56

The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the basis of a complaint made to the Karnataka Lokayukta and the enquiry was entrusted to Upalokayukta, who submitted a report to the Government on 15.09.2009 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 for entrustment of enquiry and thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15.03.2010. After completion

¶57

¶58

of the enquiry, a copy of the enquiry report and a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 25.06.2018 and without filing a reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has rushed to the Tribunal.

¶59

The Tribunal has dismissed the Application with

¶60

a liberty to the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice and in case any adverse order is passed against him, to file a fresh writ petition.

¶61

5. The order passed by the Tribunal in paragraph

¶62

Nos.5 and 6 reads as under:

¶63

"5. Admittedly, challenge is to recommendation made by the Hon'ble Upalokayukta and show cause Notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the Applicants to show cause why the penalties recommended by the Hon'ble Upalokayukta should not be imposed on them. Instead of giving reply to the show cause Notices the Applicants have rushed to this Tribunal. This Tribunal would not go into the veracity or otherwise of charges at this stage. Applicants are at liberty to give reply to show cause Notices. Defence of the Applicants is yet to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority and even if some penalty is imposed Applicants will have remedy of challenging

¶64

¶65

penalty before appropriate forum. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned Recommendation and the show cause Notice.

¶66

In the result, I pass the following Order: Applications are rejected."

¶67

In the considered opinion of this Court as the Application was not against any final order and it was only against a show cause notice, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Application. All grounds raised before the Tribunal as well as before this Court can certainly be raised in the reply to be filed to the show cause notice. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28] in paragraphs 13 to 15 has held as under:

¶68

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a chargesheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327], Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [AIR 2004 SC 1467], Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639], State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, [AIR 1987 SC 943].

¶69

¶70

The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere chargesheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

¶71

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet."

¶72

In light of the aforesaid judgment as the show cause notice has been issued by a competent authority, it is not a vague show cause notice.

¶73

The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Application as premature and therefore, this Court does

¶74

¶75

not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that the Disciplinary Authority shall with an independent mind without being influenced by the order passed by the Tribunal or by this Court shall pass an order after taking into account all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice.

¶76

With the aforesaid, the admission is declined.

¶77

W.P. No.47723/2018 is dismissed.

¶78

In light of the aforesaid order, the connected writ petitions, W.P. Nos.44281/2018 and 47770/2018, stand dismissed.

¶79

No order as to costs.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

Sd/JUDGE