The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by the State to quash an order of the KSAT. The Court held it was not a fit case for judicial intervention as the Tribunal had found no evidence to support the enquiry report, rendering the enquiry order vitiated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.2151/2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP.)
AND:
SRI. NIRANJANA S S/O M SUNDAR RAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ON DEPUTATION TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT) O/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562101.
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN A.NO. 5768/2018 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE – A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioners-State.
3
the Government Pleader who appeared before the KSAT. The Government Pleader has categorically sated that it is not a fit case to be challenged in a higher court. But it appears that thereafter the Head of Legal Cell has given a contra opinion and on the said basis, the instant writ petition has been filed.
4
instructions, the waterman has filled the water tank. The tribunal has also found that the applicant/respondent herein, was not holding office during the construction of the water tank. After accumulative appreciation of its findings, the tribunal has deemed it fit to allow the application and grant relief to the respondent/applicant.
Pleader. The learned High Court Government Pleader is unable to demonstrate any of the findings recorded by the tribunal to be contrary to facts. Apparently, the tribunal has rendered the findings after verifying the enquiry records. The enquiry stands vitiated on the short ground of not affording an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Principles of natural justice and the rules of enquiry require that whenever witnesses are examined, an opportunity has to be given to the defence to cross-examine and the witness must be compelled to subject himself for cross examination, failing which, that evidence would lose its relevance. The finding is that no such opportunity has been granted and enquiry proceedings have been closed and the Enquiry Officer has directed the parties to submit his written submissions. On this ground alone, the enquiry report stands
5
vitiated. That apart, the tribunal has also given a finding of fact with regard to the non functioning of the applicant during the relevant point of time and more particularly, with regard to the water tank being filled up on the instructions of a person other than the applicant.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Chs CT-HR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order should be entertained.
Whether the Tribunal's findings are such that a writ petition is maintainable against them.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Public Works
Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayathraj Department
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Raichur
Sri. Niranjana S
G. Narendar
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
