Allowed

Sri. D B Yuvaraja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2021WP/8509/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to correct an error apparent on the face of the record by the Administrative Tribunal. It set aside orders quashing a charge sheet against a government employee, noting sufficient documentary evidence existed, and directed the inquiry to be concluded expeditiously without adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the orders of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 19.4.2017 and 29.5.2018 are set aside. Departmental enquiry to be concluded within one year.

Sri. D B Yuvaraja Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^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.8509/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI. D B YUVARAJA S/O H V BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560001

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI VINAYAKA B., ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES(MINES) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶15

2 . DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶16

3 . ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES(2) KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDINGS

¶17

¶18

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3613/2019 (PRODUCED ANS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The present writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application No.3613/2019.

¶25

This Court in W.P. No.29212/2017 and connected matters decided on 29.06.2021, has passed a detailed and exhaustive order in respect of the other identically placed persons.

¶26

Paragraphs 51 to 59 of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition reads as under:

¶27

51. In the present case, there is an error apparent on the face of the record committed by the Tribunal and this Court by invoking the inherent powers can certainly correct the error

¶28

¶29

apparent on the face of the record. It is a well settled proposition of law that the High Court being a Court of Record has not only inherent powers, but also a duty to correct any error apparent on the face of the record. (See: M.M.Thomas v. State of Kerala, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 666 and CCC Customs v. Hongo India P.Ltd., reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791). It is trite law that label of an application is inconsequential and this Court can always correct an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, this Court can certainly correct an error being a Court of Record by invoking its inherent powers.

¶30

52. The facts of the case reveal that though the State Government has entrusted the matter to the Lokayuktha to conduct an enquiry, the State Government is disinterested in challenging the order of the Tribunal. There are allegations of corruption against large number of officers and other persons. The reason in not challenging the order passed by the Tribunal appears to be the pressure of the officers involved in the case. Therefore, the Lokayuktha, being a statutory body constituted to curb the menace, has an institutional interest and as well as the locus.

¶31

¶32

53. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/employee has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others, (supra) and Chairman of Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. A Masilamani , (supra) and his contention is that initiation of enquiry in the absence of any document/material evidence to support the charge would amount to subjecting respondent No.1 to unnecessary departmental enquiry and as the initiation of departmental enquiry adversely affects the service conditions, the charge sheet has rightly been quashed by the Tribunal and the does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶33

54. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments and the present case is not a case of a vague charge sheet at all. Along with the charge sheet, voluminous documents have been enclosed and the charge has to be proved based upon the documentary as well as other evidence produced before the enquiry officer. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that initiation of enquiry is being done in the absence of any document/material evidence and therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel does not help respondent No.1.

¶34

¶35

55. The Division Bench of this Court in J.P.Prakash v. State of Karnataka and another, W.P.No.5361/2016, decided on 6.4.2016, while dealing with almost a similar matter, in paragraphs 2 to 6 has held as under; “2. We have heard Mr.Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. H.T.Narendra Prasad, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Mr.G.Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶36

3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner was two fold: One, was that the recommendation of Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was under challenge before the Tribunal and further the order of the State Government, acting upon the recommendation of Hon’ble Lokayukta for initiation of enquiry was also under challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, did not consider those aspects of the matter. Second, was that before passing of order under Section 12(3) by Hon’ble Lokayukta, no mandatory procedure of holding enquiry was made. He also submitted that it was required for the State Government to examine as to whether mandatory procedure was followed by Hon’ble Lokayukta before passing order under Section 12(3) of the Act or not. Not having done the same, the order would be vitiated. It was submitted that the State Government could have considered that mere possession of any money, would not constitute commission of any crime or misconduct,

¶37

¶38

more particularly, when the petitioner had sufficient explanation and the same was properly considered in the investigation of crime and ‘C’ summary report was filed. He submitted that the Tribunal considered the matter as if departmental enquiry can beheld in a case irrespective of any criminal case being registered against the employee. The aforesaid relevant aspects were not considered by the Tribunal and as this court may consider in the present.

¶39

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶40

5. We may record that the Tribunal may not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge made against the order passed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act and therefore, if the said prayer is ultimately not accepted by the Tribunal, then no error could be found in the order to that extent.

¶41

6. So far as the order passed by the Government for initiation of enquiry on the report of the Hon’ble Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act is concerned, we have considered the order passed by the State Government for initiation of enquiry, more particularly the English translation produced at page Nos.98 to 100, but it cannot be said that the State Government has not considered the relevant aspects before acting upon the recommendation of Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act. We refrain from making any observations on particular statements recorded in the order by the

¶42

¶43

State Government because the whole case is at the stage where the enquiry is yet to be initiated and during the course of enquiry, the petitioner may have valid defence. If any observations are made by this Court in the present proceedings, it may prejudicially affect the rights of the parties at the inquiry or even thereafter. Hence, we leave it at that. But suffice it to observe that relevant aspects have been considered by the State Government before acting upon the recommendation of Hon’ble Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act. “

¶44

56. In J.P.Prakash’s case (supra), it has been held that the report of the Upalokayuktha cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the report made therein by itself does not affect any legal right on the petitioner therein. The action of the State Government in entrusting the matter to the Upa-lokayuktha as provided under Rule 14-A(2)(a) was upheld and it was also held that it is inappropriate to interfere in such matters at the stage of issuance of the charge sheet.

¶45

57. The present case reflects a very sorry state of affairs. A matter which was referred by the State Government for investigation under Section 7(2-A) of the Act of 1984 in the year 2007 has not attained finality on account of various litigations. The then Lokayuktha has submitted a very detailed and exhaustive report

¶46

¶47

which has been reproduced by this Court and based upon the report, charge sheet has also been issued on 8.4.2015. We are in 2021. Again, on account of an application filed by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, the matter has been delayed as the charge sheet itself was quashed by the Tribunal and the fact remains that the State Government has not been able to take any action against as many as 617 officials who were allegedly involved in corruption causing loss to the State Government running into crores and crores of rupees. Therefore, while allowing this writ petition, a request is being made to the Lokayuktha Establishment to conclude the departmental enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today and the Lokayuktha Establishment shall not grant any adjournment in the matter of departmental enquiry. The Lokayuktha is again requested to fix the dates fortnightly in order to conclude the enquiry at an early date. It is further made clear that no adjournment shall be granted and in case need so arises for grant of an adjournment, the enquiry officer shall record reasons for grant of such adjournment and the time granted by this Court shall stand extended proportionately in the light of the adjournments granted by the enquiry officer.

¶48

¶49

58. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.4.2017 passed in Application No.2199/2016 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal is set aside.

¶50

59. In the light of the order passed in WP.No.29212/2017, the connected writ petitions also stand allowed. The order dated 19.4.2017 passed in Application No.2198/2016 and the order dated 29.5.2018 passed in Application No.108/2017 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal are set aside.

¶51

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶52

No orders as to costs.

¶53

In the light of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶54

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶55

SD/-

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Sri. D B Yuvaraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D B Yuvaraja 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Nagappa

The Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-4 Vs M/S Microchip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Devaraj.Y Vs State of Karnataka

The Tahasildar Vs Smt.Sujatha N G

The Director (a and Hr) Vs Smt. E. Mary Magdalene

Sri G a Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka