Dismissed

Shri M Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021WP/4438/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a Tribunal order holding a joint enquiry. The Court held that the order was not premature and did not infringe rights, relying on precedents that writs do not lie against charge-sheets before a final adverse order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the order of the Tribunal was affirmed.

Shri M Srinivas 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 5^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 WRIT PETITION NO.4438/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN SHRI M SRINIVAS S/O LATE MUNVENKATAPPA, AGED AOBUT 38 YEARS, REVENUE INSPECTOR CHIKKAGUBBI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.GIRISH S.JAMBAGI, ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (SERVICES-2) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001

¶9

...RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP)

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.6741 TO 6744 OF 2019, ORDER DATED 22.12.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.36/2020 AND IMPUGNED ORDER NO.SIAASUE.140.KEVI 2014 DATED 8/11/2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURES-B, D AND ANNEXURE-A8 IN ANNEXURE-A).

¶11

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The present petitioner-M.Srinivas, who is applicant No.4 is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application Nos.6741 to 6744/2019 (Mr.H.R.Anil Kumar and three others) as well as the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No.36/2020 (Sri M.Srinivas v. The State of Karnataka).

¶15

The facts of the case reveal that a common order was passed on 08.11.2019 initiating joint enquiry in respect of seven persons. The order includes the present applicant as well as one N.Mahesh Babu. An application was preferred before the Tribunal by the present petitioner-M.Srinivas along with three other persons which was registered as Application Nos.6741 to 6744/2019. At the same time Mahesh Babu also submitted an application i.e., Application No.83/020. The undisputed facts reveal that the original application preferred by the present petitioner was decided on merits on 13.12.2019 and the Tribunal has arrived at a

¶16

¶17

conclusion that the action of the State Government in holding a joint enquiry does not warrant interference. It is a detailed and an exhaustive order. The order of the Tribunal in paragraphs-5 to 7 reads as under:

¶18

"5. I have perused the averments made in the applications, the documents produced by the applicants as per Annexures-A1 to A8 and also considered another document produced today by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and I have also considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel on both the sides at the Bar.

¶19

On 21.07.2014 one Sri Muniyappa made a complaint alleging as against the applicants and others that on the same day there are two orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner. It is also an allegation that the said orders came to be passed in connection with the persons who involved and to favour them and hence, action may be taken against the concerned person who involved in the said offence. A copy of the complaint is produced as per Annexure-A2 which has been filed by RTI Activist and Member of RTI Association. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, was requested to enquire into the matter on the allegations made and to submit his report. Accordingly, he submitted his report on 22.11.2016. I have perused the said report and at page no.3 of the said report in the 1^st paragraph it is mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner that he has gone through file in

¶20

¶21

the office of the Assistant Commissioner and he opined that there are no such two orders were passed and also mentioned in the same paragraph that on 14.09.2016 the complainant Sri Muniyappa himself submitted a representation stating that he has not at all gave such complaint and therefore, there are no question of obtaining the certified copy of the order and the said Sri Muniyappa has submitted his representation along with his identity cards. The material also goes to show that the complainant has submitted a letter dated 06.06.2016 wherein it is stated that he has not filed such complaint, but one Sri Lakshminarayana, Press Reporter, might have forged his signature and made the complaint himself. He has also mentioned that in this connection, he has requested to register a criminal case in Akkipete Police Station. Materials also goes to show that Sri N. Mahesh Babu, Assistant Commissioner also addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, dated 17.10.2017 stating that he nowhere connected with Sy.No.107/4 measuring 0.18 guntas. It is mentioned that the complainant has stated that he is not connected whatever with Sy.No.107/4 measuring 0.18 guntas and he is not lodged any complaint against the Government employees to take undue advantage of the document of forging of his signature. It is also mentioned in the said paragraph that the complainant has requested that to initiate criminal action against said Sri Lakshminarayana. He also stated that voluntarily the complainant has got back his compliant and requested that he is to be exonerated from the said case. There is one more letter addressed by Sri N. Mahesh Babu,

¶22

¶23

Assistant Commissioner to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, M.S. Buildings, Bengaluru, which produced as per AnnexureA5.

¶24

However, learned Government Pleader referring to the document under Annexure-A8 made the submission that the Government after perusing the entire materials, ultimately comes to the conclusion that the matter is enquired into and case is to be initiated against the DGO herein along with others. He draws attention of this Tribunal to the contents of the said order dated 08.11.2019. Therefore, he made the submission that when entire materials were considered by the Government also and held that there is a matter to be enquired into and ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed. Hence, he submitted to dismiss the applications."

¶25

The order passed by the Tribunal makes it very clear that the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on merits. It was a case where the present petitioner even before issuance of charge sheet has approached the Tribunal meaning thereby at the preliminary stage only.

¶26

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr., vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, in paragraphs 13 to 16 has held as under;

¶27

¶28

“13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh ( [1996] 1 SCC 327/JT [1995] 8 SC 331), Special Director vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (AIR 2004 SC 1467), Ulagappa vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore ( 2001(10) SCC 639), State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (AIR 1987 SC 943) etc.

¶29

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 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.

¶30

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."

¶31

The order of the State Government for holding a

¶32

joint enquiry does not suffer from any illegality. An employee gets every right/chance to defend himself in a departmental enquiry and merely ordering a joint enquiry cannot be termed as bad in law. The other grounds raised in the present case is that in Mahesh Babu's case, an interim order has been granted on 11.2.2020 in application no.83/2020.

¶33

¶34

This Court has carefully gone through the 11.22020 passed by the Tribunal and the same reveals that on 14.01.2020 i.e., on the first date of hearing an interim order has been passed and it does not reveal that an order dated 13.12.2019 passed in Application Nos.6741 to 6744/2019 was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the learned Government Advocate. The matter is yet to be decided on merits and it shall certainly be free for the learned Government Advocate to bring to the notice of the Tribunal the order passed in the case of the present petitioner. It is not a case where two applications are preferred at the same time and in one case, interim order has been granted and in another case interim order has not been granted. Therefore, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, learned Government advocate shall apprise the Tribunal about the order passed in the case of the present petitioner at the time of hearing of the matter which has been filed by Mahesh Babu in Application No.83/2020. Not only this, the Tribunal is requested to decide the application preferred by the Mahesh Babu i.e.83/2020 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

¶36