Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Venkatesh S

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2022WP/5143/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order quashing the cancellation of the respondent's candidature. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, finding no merit in the State's claim that the respondent knew of the case registration.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merits based on the Tribunal's finding that the respondent did not know of the case registration at the time of application.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Venkatesh S — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^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.5143/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶10

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SELECTION AND MEMBER SECRETARY P.C.(MEN AND WOMEN) (KSISP), SELECTION CARLETON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶11

THE COMMANDANT, 12^TH BATTALION, KSRP, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SMT SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI VENKATESH S. S/O SIDDAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

R/O. RAMANAGARA COLONY, BARAGENAHALLI POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA (TQ), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.

¶19

(BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADV.)

¶20

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, ORDER OR DIRECTION THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/08/2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.5691/2020, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶24

the petitioners-State and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

The petitioners are the Department of Home, represented by its Secretary, the DIG of Police & the Commandant, 12^th Battalion, KSRP and the respondent is the applicant.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

¶27

¶28

The respondent was an applicant pursuant to the notification dated 16.08.2018 for the post of Special Reserve Police Constable (KSRP) and in the said application, the columns 21, 21a, 22 and 22a where the details/particulars of criminal case registered and pending, were sought and as against the said columns, the respondent has categorically stated that no cases are pending. It is relevant to note that the said application was made on 18.08.2018 i.e. two days after the notification.

¶29

Thereafter, the respondent was called for to undergo

¶30

test and he having successfully completed the test, his name figured in the provisional and final selection lists. But, at the time of verification of his credentials, adverse comments were received, more particularly, with regard to his involvement in a criminal case registered with Dobaspet Police Station in Crime No.357/2016 dated 15.10.2016.

¶31

The said FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 327, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. That after

¶32

¶33

trial, the accused including the respondent were honorably acquitted by the judgment dated 15.09.2020. The petitioners, more particularly, the third petitioner on receipt of the adverse material i.e. registration of a complaint, cancelled the candidature of the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent/applicant moved the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the tribunal by order dated 26.08.2021 has been pleased to allow the application and was further pleased to quash the endorsement dated 15.10.2020 and was further pleased to direct the petitioners No.1 to 3 to appoint the applicant pursuant to his application dated 18.08.2018 under the notification dated 16.08.2018 and for having successfully completed the selection process.

¶34

The tribunal has relied on the depositions of PW3-ASI and PW4-IO wherein, it has been admitted by the witnesses that the accused were neither summoned by the Investigation Officer nor investigated much less arrested and that straightaway a chargesheet came to be filed. The

¶35

¶36

tribunal appreciating the depositions of the witnesses namely PW3 and PW4 concluded that the applicant/respondent had no knowledge of the crime registered against him as on the date of his application i.e. 18.08.2018 and that he became aware of the same only on filing of a charge sheet. We have perused the final report which is produced as Annexurex-A9 wherein, the date of final report is recorded as 03.09.2018 i.e. after merely 15 days after the application was made.

¶37

We have perused the material on record. The learned High Court Government Pleader would attempt to impute knowledge on the basis of paragraph 3 in the judgment of the criminal court wherein, it is stated as under:-

¶38

“After the service of summons, the accused persons have appeared before the court, the accused No.1 to 8 are on bail through out the trial. Section 207 of Cr.P.C is complied with and the Accused 1 to 8 are supplied with the copy of the charge sheet alongwith all other documents. Charges were framed and plea of the accused persons were recorded and

¶39

¶40

the accused No.1 to 8 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial A8 was reported to be dead and thus abated.”

¶41

In the said paragraph, it is merely stated that

¶42

the accused were on bail throughout the trial. Neither the date of the bail order nor the date on which summons was issued pursuant to the final report, nor the date on which the summons served, is forthcoming.

¶43

The short point on which the tribunal has concluded against the petitioner is that knowledge of the registration of the criminal case cannot be attributed to the respondent/applicant as it has been categorically admitted by the PW3-ASI and PW4-PSI that they had neither investigated the accused including the petitioner nor had they arrested them or even summoned them with regard to an FIR registered against them. The petitioners are unable to point out any material on the basis of which, knowledge of the registration of the criminal case as on 15.10.2016 can be imputed to the respondent/applicant.

¶44

¶45

In that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the finding of the tribunal that the information furnished in the application, can by no stretch of imagination, be categorized as false information. That apart, it can be discerned from the material that it appears to be hasty from the complainant and the accused. That apart, it is seen that the order of the judgment of the trial court in Crime No.357/2016 (C.C. No.556/2019) has become final and no appeal is filed against the acquittal and the State has accepted the correctness of the finding. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the instant writ petition. Petition being devoid of merits, does not warrant for interference. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Chs CT-HR

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Venkatesh S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Venkatesh S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jupiter Marines Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Nayaks Finance & Investment (R) Kota

Smt.Jenifer Lolita.C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganapathi Bajanthri Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri P S Suryavamshi Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Sathish M.R. Vs State of Karnataka