Allowed

The Chief Executive Officer v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2021WP/8424/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Zilla Panchayat against the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in quashing a corruption charge sheet without giving respondents time to file replies. A charge sheet generally requires no writ interference unless it is vague or without jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal quashing the charge sheet is set aside. The competent disciplinary authority is directed to ensure the enquiry is completed at an early date.

The Chief Executive Officer 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 16^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.8424/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMKUR-572 130

¶11

(BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA A., ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING

¶14

BENGALURU-560001

¶15

2 . SRI P SUDARSHAN S/O LATE PRAKASH S AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS GRADE-I

¶16

GRAM PANCHAYATH SECRETARY BEGUR GRAM PANCHAYTH KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR-572 130

¶17

R/A 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS

¶18

¶19

NEAR NEW PUMP HOUSE BANASHANKARI TUMKUR-572 102

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI K.V.LAKSHMANACHAR, ADV. FOR C/R2 SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE DATED 10.11.2020 IN APPLICATION NO.3599/2020 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Tumkur being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application No.3599/2020 (Shri P. Sudarshan Vs. The State of Karnataka and another).

¶26

The facts of the case reveal that a charge sheet was issued by the competent disciplinary authority to respondent No.2 herein on 23.09.2014 levelling as many as 26 charges for committing misconduct in respect of certain works under the scheme of Mahatma Gandhi

¶27

¶28

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and the charge sheet was issued against as many as 305 officers. Respondent No.2 herein did submit a rely to the charge sheet on 18.10.2014 and thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 18.02.2015. The enquiry was not concluded in time and in those circumstances, an application was preferred before the Tribunal for quashment of the charge sheet issued on 23.09.2014 and also challenging the order appointing the enquiry officer on 18.02.2015.

¶29

The record of the case reflects that the application before the Tribunal was preferred on 08.09.2020. The Tribunal on 11.09.2020 has directed the learned Government Advocate to accept notice on behalf of respondent No.1 therein and time was granted to the learned Government Advocate to file reply and the notice was also issued to the Chief Executive Officer (respondent No.2 therein). On 18.09.2020, the Tribunal directed Sri B.J. Somayaji, learned Counsel to accept notice on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer and to file a reply, if any, in the matter. The matter was again listed on 06.10.2020

¶30

¶31

and on the said date, the Tribunal has observed that in case no reply is filed, it would be heard finally. Again the matter was listed on 09.10.2020 and it was adjourned to 13.10.2020. Finally, the matter was heard on 22.10.2020. Meaning thereby, without granting further time, within two months, the matter has been decided.

¶32

In the considered opinion of this Court cases do deserve to be decided at an early date but unholy haste should not be shown in deciding a matter, that too in absence of a reply. In the considered opinion of this Court, proper time should have been granted to respondents-State as well as to the Zilla Panchayat to file reply in the matter. It is a case of corruption in which 305 officers are involved. The details of the officers, against whom the charge sheet was issued, are available at page No.119 of the present writ petition. The Tribunal by its order has set aside the charge sheet and the appointment of the enquiry officer.

¶33

¶34

The learned Counsel for the Zilla Panchayat has argued before this Court that the scope of interference in the matter of quashment of charge sheet is quite limited. His contention is that it is only the enquiry in which it could have been held that the officer is guilty of misconduct committed by him or not. The Tribunal has even gone to the extent in holding that the respondent-employee is not guilty of the misconduct. Reliance has been placed of an audit report by the Tribunal to give a clean chit to the respondent No.2-employee, who was charged on account of the corruption in respect of M.G.N.R.E.G.A. The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER Vs. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , in paragraphs 13 to 15 has held as under:

¶35

“ 14. 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 charge-sheet or showcause 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

¶36

¶37

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 chargesheet 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.

¶38

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

¶39

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. ”

¶40

In the light of the Kunisetty Satyanarayana's case

¶41

(supra), as the charge sheet was not a vague charge sheet

¶42

¶43

and there was a serious charge of corruption, it was issued by the competent disciplinary authority against as many as 305 officers, the Tribunal at the most could have directed for completion of enquiry at an early date. Therefore, in the absence of the reply filed by the State as well as the Zilla Panchayath, the Tribunal has erred in law by quashing the charge sheet in the matter and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶44

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The competent disciplinary authority is directed to ensure that the enquiry is completed at an early date.

¶45

No order as to costs.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

The Chief Executive Officer v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Executive Officer 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

Smt. Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M R Thilak Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raghupathi Hegde Vs Smt Vishalakshi Bhat

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri S C Krishnappa

Smt Bylamma Vs the State of Karnataka