Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Mr. K Gangamuthaiah

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2022WP/4425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by the State of Karnataka seeking to quash an Administrative Tribunal order. The Tribunal had set aside a penalty imposed on a retired Assistant Agriculture Officer. The Court found no merit in the petition as the Tribunal's evidence appreciation, specifically regarding a loan document, was unsullied. The writ petition stood dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal setting aside the penalty of permanent stoppage of 25% of pension is upheld.

The State of Karnataka Vs Mr. K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.4425/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶9

... PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)

¶10

AND: MR. K.GANGAMUTHAIAH, S/O. KEMPARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, ASSISTANT AGRICULTURE OFFICER (RETD.), R/AT NO.3466, 5^TH CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562103.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1541/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.

¶13

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- State.

¶17

The petitioner is State by Department of Agriculture and the respondent was an employee discharging duties as Assistant Agriculture Officer and thereafter retired.

¶18

The petitioner/State is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 03.03.2020 rendered in Application No.1541/2017, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the penalty imposed and the order bearing No. PÀÈE 01 PÀÈ¥À« 2013 dated 30.01.2017

¶19

Annexure- A14 to the application, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to set-aside the penalty of permanent stoppage of 25% of the pension to the respondent and further directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant.

¶20

The Tribunal has re-appreciated the evidence

¶21

and materials before the Enquiry Officer and particularly

¶22

¶23

observed regarding the reliability of the evidence of PW2, the original complainant on whose insistence, the law was set in motion. It has perused the deposition of PW1 to PW4 and documents at Ex.P1 to P15 and also the evidence deposed by respondent as DW3 and 22 documents were examined on behalf of defence including Ex.D1. On examining the same, it was found that no evidence has been let in nor has the petitioner Department been able to disprove the contents of Ex.D1, which records a loan transaction of the sum of Rs.15,000/-. That apart, the Tribunal has also appreciated the fact that the witnesses have rescinded their earlier statements and deposed contrary to the statements and that the cross-examination has also not borne fruit. It has further observed that some of the witnesses, who deposed as witness could not have stated on those lines in view of the fact that they were not present either during the time of the alleged demand or at the time of payment of alleged demand. It has also observed that the prosecution has also miserably failed and the Criminal Court has honourably acquitted the petitioner.

¶24

¶25

The observations of the Tribunal with regard to Ex.D1 are pertinent. The said Ex.D1 is a document with which the complainant PW-2 has been confronted and PW2 admitted the contents and further admitted on oath that he had borrowed the said sums noted therein. If that be so, and if the said evidence/stand is not dislodged or disproved in the departmental enquiry and if the said document remains on record, there can be no quarrel with the findings rendered by the Tribunal.

¶26

In that view of the matter, there being no materials produced to either disprove Ex.D1 nor or any materials placed to doubt its veracity, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

dn/CT-HR

The State of Karnataka v. Mr. K Gangamuthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Mr. K Gangamuthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N Deepak Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs K Siddaraju

Smt Sharadhamma Vs Smt K R Rathnamma

The State of Karnataka Vs Tharanatha S

Shri H U Talawar Vs the Chief Secretary

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri K M Nagaraj