Allowed

Dr T Shivananjappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2021WP/63488/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the charge sheet issued by the Commissioner was void ab initio as he lacked jurisdiction to even impose minor penalties at the time of issuance. The Tribunal order removing the petitioner was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits except backwages.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be reinstated forthwith in service with all consequential benefits except backwages; order of Tribunal set aside.

Dr T Shivananjappa Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JUNE, 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.63488/2016 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

DR T. SHIVANANJAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER TALUK HOSPITAL K.R.NAGAR (UNDER ORDERS OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE) R/AT NO. 104, SRIRAMA BLOCK 5TH WARD, K.R.NAGAR - 571 602 MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(By SRI : VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES – DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING SACHIVALAYA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶16

¶17

THE DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By SRI. B. RAJENDRAPRASAD, AGA FOR R1-R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:08.12.2015 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.405/2005 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.2015 passed in Application No.405/2005 (Dr.T.Shivananjappa vs. The State of Karnataka and others) by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.

¶24

The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner before this Court was a Doctor serving the State of Karnataka (Group ‘B’ Officer) and was served with a charge sheet on 23.3.2001. He did submit a reply to the charge sheet and finally, after holding an enquiry, an order was

¶25

¶26

passed on 28.12.2004 removing him from services with immediate effect. The charge against the petitioner was that he was unauthorizedly absent from 12.2.1996 to 15.3.1996. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an application before the Tribunal.

¶27

A specific ground was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal stating that the authority, who has issued the charge sheet i.e., Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare Service, was not jurisdictionally competent to issue the charge sheet and it was the State Government, which could have issued a charge sheet in the matter.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Rule 9(2)(bbb-1) Karnataka Civil Services Rules (CCA) and the aforesaid clause came into force w.e.f, 20.8.2002. The same is reproduced as under;

¶29

“9. Disciplinary Authorities.-

¶30

(1) .....

¶31

(2) Without prejudice to the provision of sub-rule (1) but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3).-

¶32

Xxxxx

¶33

¶34

(bbb-1) The Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare Services may impose on any Government Servant upto and inclusive of the level of Joint Director (for the pay Scale of Rs.10620-14960) (as may be revised from time to time) belonging to the Health and Family Welfare Services, any of the penalties specified in Clauses (ii) (iii) (iii-a) (iv) and (iv-a) of Rule 8;”

¶35

Meaning thereby, the Commissioner became the disciplinary authority only for inflicting the minor punishment

¶36

w.e.f., 20.8.2002.

¶37

5. Rule 10(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules

¶38

(CCA), 1957 reads as under;

¶39

“10A. Authority to institute proceedings.

¶40

(1) The governor or any other authority empowered by him by general or specific order may.-

¶41

(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant.

¶42

(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant on whom that Disciplinary Authority is competent to impose under these Rules any of the penalties specified in Rule 8.

¶43

(2) A Disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iva) of Rule 8 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 notwithstanding that such Disciplinary Authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties.”

¶44

The aforesaid Rule makes it very clear that an

¶45

authority empowered to inflict a minor punishment can issue

¶46

¶47

a charge sheet and in case, a major penalty has to be inflicted, the competent disciplinary authority for inflicting the major punishment is required to pass an order of punishment.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that in the present case, the Commissioner was not the authority even to inflict a minor punishment and the charge sheet was issued on 23.3.2001, hence the charge sheet is void ab initio. The Commissioner became the disciplinary authority for inflicting a minor punishment only on 20.8.2002.

¶49

This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not at all considered the aforesaid ground. The petitioner took shelter of the aforesaid ground by amending the application before the Tribunal and there is no whisper in respect of the aforesaid ground by the Tribunal.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference. As the charge sheet itself was issued by an incompetent authority, all further actions are void ab initio.

¶51

¶52

10. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The

¶53

order passed by the Tribunal dated 8.12.2015 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service. However, as the petitioner has not worked, he will not be entitled for backwages. He will be entitled for all consequential benefits except backwages ie., seniority, notional fixation of salary etc. The exercise of passing an order and granting the benefits be concluded within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶54

No orders as to costs.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Dr T Shivananjappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr T Shivananjappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh M Inamdar Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sri P S Suresh

Mr Ashish Mittal Vs Sri K M Umesh @ K M Umeshwaraiah