Dismissed
The State of Karnataka v. Sri K M Nagaraj
Karnataka HCWP/3897/2022
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
非政府组织代表抗辩高等行政法院裁决，质疑民事服务部门调查结论缺乏证据。法庭审查后认为，上诉方无法证明干预理由，因此驳回请愿书。
What the court decided
AI extract
非政府组织代表抗辩高等行政法院裁决，质疑民事服务部门调查结论缺乏证据。法庭审查后认为，上诉方无法证明干预理由，因此驳回请愿书。
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 04TH 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.3897 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.
….PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP)
AND:
1 . SRI K.M. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
O/O JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE RAMANAGARA.
2
5 . SRI C. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O SHIVANNA RETIRED AGRICULTURE ASSISTANT R/AT C/O RAVIPRAKASH PARAMADEVANAHALLI BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3
6 . SRI CHELUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE CHELUVAIAH RETIRED ASSISTANT AGRICULTURE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE R/AT FLAT NO.1108 NEAR SHIVALAYA TEMPLE RAMATHEERTHA NAGAR BELAGAVI-590015.
8 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001
….RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS. B) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:08.12.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NOS.2913/2020 C/W 2933-2935/2020, 10741/2020, 10742/2020 AND 1074/2020 BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed by the
petitioner/State Government being aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2020 passed in Application No.2913/2020 clubbed with Application Nos.29332935/2020, 10741/2020, 10742/2020 and 10743/2020 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in and by which, the Tribunal allowing the said applications, quashed the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the petitioner imposing penalty on the respondents.
5
Development Programme during the period 20102013, the 2nd respondent – Karnataka Lokayuktha directed the C.E.O – Z.P, Mandya to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, one Smt.Veena verified the work and handed over the documents to the Deputy Secretary who submitted an erroneous investigation report to C.E.O, Z.P, Mandya. In the said report, it was stated that wages in respect of the works done have been paid in cash to one Sri.Ravi, Head Mazdoor instead of cheques as required by the Karnataka Financial Code. That there are no quality control reports for the check-dam work executed and also approved works plan list was not shown. After consideration of replies by the respondents, Hon’ble Upa Lokayuktha recorded its finding and recommended for initiation of departmental proceedings and accordingly, by order dated 22.01.2015, enquiry was entrusted under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. Articles of charges were issued by the Enquiry Officer
6
on 26.03.2015. Only two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority who were the complainant and the Deputy Secretary of ZP, Mandya. It was contended that the charge is vague and not specific as the particulars of the work in respect of which the misconduct is alleged were not specified. That the complaint was belated and could not have been investigated under the provisions of Section 8(2)(c) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984. That the respondent No.1 did not consider the reply to the second show-cause notice. As such, the order was contrary to the law. That out of seven of the respondents, two of them have retired from Government service on 30.04.2012 and 28.02.2012 respectively. As such, the investigation upon the complaint dated 29.07.2013, entrustment of enquiry to the Lokayuktha on 22.01.2015 and consequent issue of articles of charges on 26.03.2015 was untenable in law. Hence, sought for allowing of the application.
7
denying the case of the respondents.
regarding bar on initiation of proceedings under Rule 214(6)(A) of the KCSRs. However, the Tribunal after analyzing the articles of charges and the evidence led
in by the Department against the respondents, concluded that the Enquiry Report is a case of no evidence and finding of the Enquiry Officer are untenable and perverse. Accordingly, allowed the application and set aside the order dated 10.01.2020 as against the respondents herein.
8
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-State Government is before this Court.
9
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.
the evidence of the complainant examined as P.W.1 has no relevance to the report of P.W.2 submitted to the Hon’ble Upa Lokayuktha. The Tribunal has found that the investigation report did not address or corroborate any of the material evidence of P.W.1. Indeed the investigation report is on totally different issues than raised by the complainant in the complaint. Evidence of P.W.1 has no bearing on the articles of charge including on the allegation on payments made
10
in cash to the Head Coolie. The complainant-P.W.1 in his evidence stated that it is in relation to planting of tree saplings whereas the articles of charge is in relation to execution of check-dam work. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the allegation in the complaint, charges alleged and the evidence produced are distinct and different.
11
investigation into the complaint nor was she authorised or directed to do so by any authority. The Tribunal has also noted that there is no explanation as to who is the author of investigation report as Smt.Poornima - P.W.2 had merely communicated the report to the Hon’ble Upa Lokayuktha. As such, the reliance placed on the report submitted by Smt.Poornima –P.W.2 who had not conducted investigation was untenable.
12
proved was untenable and perverse and accordingly, set aside the same.
Tribunal with regard to the factual aspect of the matter and non-availability of the material evidence justifying the articles of charges and imputation of misconduct which goes to the root of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner-State has not made out any grounds warranting interference with the findings of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
bnv
2 issues framed by the court
是否具有充分理由干预高等行政法院关于行政调查缺乏证据和结论荒谬的裁决。
国家政府在纪律调查中是否未能建立支持指控的事实依据。
The State of Karnataka
K.M. Nagaraj
Rajesh D.B.
B. Somasundara
M. Mahantheshappa
C. Nagaraju
G. Narendra
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court