Dismissed

Sri G a Gangadhar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2021WP/8636/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed by a Deputy Conservator of Forests challenging a charge sheet. Relying on Union of India vs. Kunisetti Satyanarayana, the Court held that a non-vague charge sheet by a competent authority does not permit writ interference and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed as the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application challenging the charge sheet.

Sri G a Gangadhar 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 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.8636/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI G A GANGADHAR S/O LATE AVALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (FOREST MOBILE SQUAD), JARAKABANDE, FOREST CAMPUS, JALAHALLI (WEST), K.G. HALLI, BANGALORE - 560 015.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.S.BHAGWAT, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶14

2 . PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HEAD OF THE FOREST FORCE, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, AGA)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.04.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.359/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.359/2021.

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet dated 22.11.2019 issued by the competent disciplinary authority and the Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid application. However, the Tribunal has observed that the state should take necessary steps against two more persons against whom prima facie case was found for allegedly committing misconduct.

¶23

This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Tribunal and is of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application.

¶24

¶25

In the present case, the charge sheet has been issued by the competent disciplinary authority and the said charge sheet is certainly not a vague charge sheet. The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 has held as under:

¶26

“ 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 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.

¶27

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 charge-sheet.

¶28

¶29

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or showcause 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. ”

¶30

In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the question of interference at the stage of issuance of the charge sheet, when it is not a vague charge sheet nor it is issued by the authority not competent to do so, does not arise.

¶31

Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sri G a Gangadhar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G a Gangadhar 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

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. D B Yuvaraja Vs State of Karnataka