Dismissed

Sri. Krishnappa. H. R. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2022WP/7864/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order refusing to entertain an application against a government employee’s suspension. Speaking through a preliminary hearing, the Court held that the charge involved moral turpitude and the suspension was passed by a competent authority under applicable service rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed; the order of the Tribunal refusing to quash the suspension is affirmed.

Sri. Krishnappa. H. R. Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^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.7864/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI KRISHNAPPA H.R., S/O H.RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR / MEMBER SECRETARY, MALUR PLANNING AUTHORITY, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH.K, ADV.) AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & TOWN PLANNING), VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. (BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

¶13

¶14

THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO-610/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO-610/2022 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B).

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal dated 30.03.2022 whereby the tribunal has refused to entertain the application and quash the order of suspension dated 04.02.2022.

¶18

The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner is in

¶19

the cadre of Assistant Director of Town Planning in the department of Urban Development (Development Authority and Town Planning) and was earlier discharging duty as Assistant Director/Member Secretary of the Town Planning Authority, Sedam, Kalaburgi district. That the petitioner

¶20

¶21

came to be transferred to the post of Assistant Director/Member Secretary, Malur Planning Authority on 11.02.2021. Pursuant to the said order of transfer the petitioner was relieved from his post at Sedam and reported to duty at Malur. That the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB for short) had prepared a report and by the said report dated 13.07.2021 it is alleged that the petitioner had a amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. Pursuant to the report submitted to the S.P., ACB, Davanagere a FIR came to be registered by the Dy.S.P., Davanagere for the offences punishable under Section 13(i)(b) and Section 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act, for short) against the petitioner on 14.07.2021. Thereafter, several places associated with the petitioner were searched, in the interregnum the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.15285/2021 impugning the validity of the FIR registered against him and this Court by an interim order has been pleased to restrain the ACB from filing any charge sheet.

¶22

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel that

¶24

thereafter the ACB by a communication is alleged to have recommended that the petitioner be shifted from Malur office and further he be kept under suspension. Under the said communication the ACB had also called for an action taken report to be submitted within 15 days. In these circumstances the petitioner approached the tribunal in Application No.4522/2021 impugning the ACB’s communication dated 5.8.2021 and initially an interim order came to be granted by the tribunal. Thereafter by final order dated 21.10.2021 the tribunal was pleased to dismiss the application on the premise that the application itself was premature. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner said to have approached this Court in W.P. No.19687/2021 and for reasons best known to the petitioner is said to have withdrawn the said writ petition on 10.11.2021. It is submitted that thereafter on 04.02.2022 the impugned order of suspension came to be passed by which the petitioner was placed under suspension.

¶25

¶26

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ACB has not made any such recommendations and the reliance on the letter dated 5.8.2021 to place the petitioner under suspension is wholly unwarranted and contrary to law and that the impugned action is a whimsical one and the respondents have proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension only in view of the fact that the tribunal has vacated the interim stay.

¶27

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently oppose the petition and would support the order of dismissal passed by the tribunal.

¶28

From the narration above it is apparent that the petitioner has been proceeded against on the premise that he has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The rules, Rule 10 (1) (aa) of the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1957, clearly provide these circumstances as a ground to place an

¶29

¶30

employee under suspension. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authority which passed the impugned order is incompetent to issue the order. That apart it is not denied by the petitioner that the charge leveled against him is one involving moral turpitude or corruption, by taking advantage of his office. A copy of the complaint lodged by the officer of the ACB, Davanagere makes out a prima facie case of amassing of wealth. The tribunal has also appreciated the order of suspension in detail and a perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order of the tribunal would clearly demonstrate that the tribunal has considered the matter in detail and the reasoning set out by the tribunal to reject the case canvassed by the petitioner is in consonance with law. The tribunal has also placed reliance on the rulings of the Apex Court. The fact remains that the petitioner has been proceeded for the misconduct involving moral turpitude/corruption and the order of suspension is passed by the competent authority. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of

¶31

¶32

the tribunal. In view of the above, the petition does not merit further consideration. Accordingly, the petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

ykl CT-HR