High Court allowed Writ Petition quashing Tribunal order and disciplinary orders. Held that without evidence linking petitioner to alleged act of obtaining CDR, penalty was arbitrary and illegal after enquiry officers exonerated him.
Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order quashed; Disciplinary orders quashed; No cumulative effect penalty.
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 18TH 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.3660 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SATHISH M.R. S/O LATE RAGHUNATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE (METAL NO.2179) KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION MANGALORE – 575 002 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT R/O “GORAKSHA”, PRASHANTHI ROAD SHAKTHINAGARA MANGALORE – 575 016 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
….PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.6616/2018 DATED: 18.03.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE –A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Present writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.03.2020 passed in Application No.6616/2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) and also the order dated 06.08/09/2016 passed by the respondent No.4 and the order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 and the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1 and consequently to allow the application.
4
the allegations levelled against him. Thereupon, an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Authority and a report dated 17.07.2015 and further enquiry report dated 10.02.2016 were submitted exonerating the petitioner by holding that the charges made against him were not proved. That the respondent No.1 differing from the findings of the enquiry authority had issued a show cause notice on 05.07.2016 and held that the charges made against the petitioner are proved and proceeded to impose the penalty of postponement of annual increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension from 24.05.2014 to 02.12.2015 as suspension only.
which was dismissed on 12.01.2017. That upon a revision petition filed by the petitioner, the penalty was modified by imposing postponement of increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months. Thus, being aggrieved by
5
the said orders, petitioner filed the application before the tribunal.
6
(a) that the disciplinary authority grossly erred in imposing the penalty on the petitioner by overruling the findings of the enquiry officers who on two occasions exonerated the petitioner of the charges alleged against him for want of evidence.
(b) that the entire case of the disciplinary authority depends upon the evidence/statement of one witness namely, Manoj Kumar, who was examined as P.W.3 and whose statements are contrary, inconsistent and unsubstantiated.
7
(c) the tribunal erred in holding that the case of the petitioner is not a case of “no evidence” and strict proof was not required in the departmental enquiry, while in fact the petitioner has been punished without there being any evidence at all. That the evidence on record would establish that the petitioner was innocent of the charges leveled against him. As such, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. Hence, sought for allowing of the petition.
8
orders impugned do not warrant any interference. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
9
disciplinary authority differing with enquiry reports relying upon the statement of witness one Sri.Manoj Kumar, who has stated to the effect that on 10.02.2014 the petitioner had sent an SMS through his mobile asking for CDR and in response thereof, he had informed the petitioner that he would furnish CDR only if a request letter is issued from the Police Station and that thereafter, on 10.02.2014 and 12.02.2014 he received e-mail from the Panambur Police Station asking for the CDR. Based on the said statement, the disciplinary authority has concluded that such a request for CDR could not have been asked by any one other than the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has further referred to the statements of one Smt.Bharathi and one Sri.Harish, A.S.I and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner without any orders of the higher authorities and misusing the criminal cases registered in the Police Station obtained the CDR of Sri.Nalinkumar and handed over to his political opponent.
10
appreciate that no material is placed with regard to the petitioner sending SMS to Sri.Manoj Kumar asking for CDR as claimed. The e-mail has apparently been sent from the Police Station. There is no evidence with regard to the person who sent the e-mail and also no evidence with regard to the basis on which the e-mail was sent. Even if such an e-mail was sent there is no material on record to attribute any role of the petitioner in sending the said e- mail. Admittedly, the CDR was obtained by Sri.Manojkumar based on the e-mail sent from Panambur Police Station but there is no proof for the said email having been sent, with criminal case numbers mentioned therein, by the petitioner. In the absence of such an evidence, it is incomprehensible to hold that the CDR was obtained by the petitioner.
11
therein have amicably resolved their differences and the complainant was not pursuing the allegation and the case came to be closed. Accordingly upon the petition filed by Sri.Suddatha Jain, this Court by order dated 27.11.2015 quashed the First Information Report.
ORDER
(i) The Writ petition is allowed.
12
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal correctly rejected the writ petition by holding that the case was not one of no evidence despite exoneration by enquiry officers.
Whether the disciplinary authority justified imposing penalty in the absence of material evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged misconduct.
Sri. Sathish M.R.
State of Karnataka
G.Narendra
M.G.S.Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
