Allowed

Dr H.R.Nanjundappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2021WP/5757/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired government servant challenging a deduction from his pension for alleged misconduct. The court observed that the disciplinary authority had recovered funds before issuing a dissenting note to the employee, violating natural justice principles. The order set aside the recovery and directed refund with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; amount of Rs. 76,105/- refunded to petitioner within 90 days with interest at 8.5% per annum.

Dr H.R.Nanjundappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.5757/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

DR H.R.NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICE DEPARTMENT NOW R/AT 037-J PARIWAR PRESIDENCY ANUGRAHA LAYOUT - II BILEKAHALLI BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.H.ASHOK KUMAR, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, (VETERINARY) VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

2 . THE COMMISSIONER ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICE DEPARTMENT VISVESWARAYA TOWER DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶16

¶17

3 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

4 . KARNATAKA SHETT AND WOOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS ORGANIZING DIRECTOR KURI BHAVAN HEBBAL BENGALURU - 560 024

¶19

5 . PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL KARNATAKA P B NO. 5329/5369 PARK HOUSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/02/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.2057/2020, FILE AT ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner before this Court, a retired Government servant, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.2057/2020 (Dr.H.R.Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka and others), decided on 22.2.2021.

¶26

¶27

The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner is a retired government servant and has superannuated on 31.1.2012. He was working as an Assistant Director in the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service Department. A charge sheet was issued to him for allegedly causing loss to the tune of Rs.76,105/- to the State Government. As per the imputation of misconduct, in the year 2007 the petitioner has purchased 130 Deccani female sheep from Rajini Farm Maharastra and they were transported to the Hybrid Sheep Breeding Centre. Out of 130 sheep, 51 female sheep were unfit for breeding resulting in loss to the tune of Rs.76,105/-. An enquiry was held in the matter and during the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2012. The amount of Rs.76,105/was deducted from the DCRG.

¶28

The most important aspect of the case is that the enquiry officer submitted a report exonerating the petitioner and a second show cause notice was issued, which is on record.

¶29

The second show cause notice dated 7.8.2013 is reproduced as under;

¶30

¶31

”Translated copy of Annexure-E

¶32

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

¶33

No.Pa Sa Mee/19/P E V 2010 Government of Karnataka

¶34

Secretariat Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, dated 7.8.2013.

¶35

SECOND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

¶36

That you, Dr.H.R.Nanjundappa, Assistant Director, at the time of working in Government Sheep and Wool Development Corporation, Tumkur, has committed derelictions of duty, in respect of that misconduct departmental enquiry has been held against you. The enquiry officer has submitted the enquiry report to the Government. The said copy of enquiry report is herewith enclosed. In the said enquiry report it has stated that the allegation made against you are not proved. But the Government being the disciplinary authority not accepting the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer for the below mentioned reasons.

¶37

'You are being a Animal Husbandry expert, you have to purchase the young and healthy sheep for breeding purpose. But there is no doubt about it, out of 130 female sheep purchased, 51 sheep are unhealthy and teeth worn-out and about to fall. For that reasons within few days from the date of purchase another Assistant Director has examined the said sheep, then, the real fact came to know that you have purchased the aged and unhealthy sheep. Therefore, on the face of the record it is not necessary to prove the alleged allegation again, and it is not possible to accept the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer as charges against you is held not proved. Therefore, the disciplinary authority rejected the enquiry report.

¶38

For the above said reasons, due to your negligence loss of Rs.76,105/- has been caused to Government. The disciplinary authority has decided to recover the said loss from your pensionary benefits. In this connection you are hereby directed to submit your statement of objections in writing whatever you want to say if any, to the Government within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Notice, failing which or refused to do so in this regard, it will be treated that nothing to say from your end and further action will be taken as per rules mind it.

¶39

By Order and in the name of Governor of Karnataka,

¶40

Sd/(Sarasa) Under Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department (Veterinary Services)."

¶41

¶42

5. A punishment order was also passed on

¶43

21.12.2015 for recovering a sum of Rs.76,105/-.

¶44

The petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing an application i.e.,5553/2019, the same was decided on 5.2.2020 and the Tribunal in paragraph 7 has held as under;

¶45

"7. Hence, the application is allowed to that extent only and the respondent – authorities are directed to consider the reply statement of the applicant on merits and in accordance with law and to take a decision in the matter and intimate the same to the applicant herein, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in case, if the applicant is aggrieved by any such decision to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by way of final order, he is at liberty to challenge the said order."

¶46

The disciplinary authority was directed to consider the reply of the petitioner afresh to the show cause notice.

¶47

The disciplinary authority has again passed a similar order on 12.3.2020 and the application preferred in the matter has been dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶48

In the present case, the undisputed facts reveal that the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer as evident from the second show cause notice. It is a well settled proposition of law that, in case, the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the

¶49

¶50

enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority is under an obligation to serve the note of dissent to the employee in question and after receiving his reply, the disciplinary authority is free to pass a final order in the matter. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has already formed an opinion before receiving any reply of the petitioner that he is guilty of the misconduct and the show cause notice also reflects that the disciplinary authority has already decided to recover the amounts from his pensionary benefits. Such an action is impermissible in law.

¶51

9. The Apex Court in the case of Punjab National

¶52

Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998)

¶53

7 SCC 84, in paragraph 19, has held as under;

¶54

" 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer."

¶55

¶56

Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the disciplinary authority has not given the dissenting note to the petitioner before forming an opinion, the impugned order of punishment deserves to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. The amount recovered from the DCRG be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today. It is made clear that if the amount is not refunded within 90 days from today, it shall carry interest from the date it was recovered from the petitioner till it is actually paid at the rate of 8.5% per annum.

¶57

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶58

No order as to costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Dr H.R.Nanjundappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr H.R.Nanjundappa 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

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

Shri. Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs State of Karnataka