Allowed

Sri S S Jadhav S/O Sadashiva (Shivaji Sadashiv Jadhav ) v. the Inspector General of Police (Igp)

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023WP/102332/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing an application regarding the petitioner's reduced pay. The Court set aside the impugned order, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of disciplinary findings concerning liquor possession, and granted liberty to produce additional documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned Tribunal order set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for reconsideration; liberty granted to produce additional documents.

Sri S S Jadhav S/O Sadashiva (Shivaji… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10177-DB WP No. 102332 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 102332 OF 2023 (S-KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI S S JADHAV S/O SADASHIVA (SHIVAJI SADASHIV JADHAV ) AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT SUB -INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL POLICE STATION BELAGAVI R/AT NO 4315 SADASHANTHI KHADAKGALLI DIST BELAGAVI 590001

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (IGP) NORTH RANGE BELAGAVI 590001

¶14

K M SOMASHEKAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH 2023.09.12 10:43:49 +0530

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BELAGAVI DISTRICT 590001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.8540/2018, DATED 4/08/2022, ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-C & CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW APPLICATION.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARYHEARING, THIS DAY, S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10177-DB WP No. 102332 of 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition by the applicant in Application No.8540/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 4.8.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) whereby the said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶23

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State and perused the material on record.

¶24

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that vide impugned order dated 28.04.2018 and the endorsement dated 6.8.2018, pay of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector was reduced to a minimum pay-scale, aggrieved by which, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the instant application. The said application having been contested by the respondents, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ petition.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10177-DB WP No. 102332 of 2023

¶26

4. Apart from other contentions, it was contended that in view of honourable acquittal of the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.2 in CC No.1039/2005, dated 29.09.2007, finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment imposed by respondents were erroneous and the same deserves to be set-aside. It was also contended that the petitioner was brother of late Sadashiv Heeramani Jadhav, who was working in Indian Army as Hawaldar and was authorized to possess additional liquor bottles, apart from the fact that the said additional liquor bottles were not in the private residence, but at his ancestral house at the time of search. It was contended that finding recorded by the disciplinary authority was harsh and punishment imposed by the respondents was illegal and arbitrary and same deserves to be set-aside.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition to the fact that the petitioner had already produced the material to establish that his brother was authorized to possess and carry 96 bottles of liquor comprising of Whisky and Rum, the said bottles having been found in his ancestral residence and not at his private residence, the Disciplinary Authority as

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10177-DB WP No. 102332 of 2023

¶30

well as Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim of the petitioner. It was also contended that if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner, he would substantiate the aforesaid contention remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶31

6. Though the said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently were opposed by the learned Government Advocate, having regard to the fact that the said material produced/sought to be produced by the petitioner would be relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issue as to whether the petitioner was guilty of committing mis-conduct of holding/possessing additional liquor bottles beyond prescribed limits and was also involved in sale of the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions of the parties, in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by adopting a justice oriented approach, we deem it just and appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10177-DB WP No. 102332 of 2023

¶33

7. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

a) Writ Petition stands allowed .

¶36

b) The impugned order dated 4.8.2022 passed in Application No.8540/2018 by Tribunal is setaside.

¶37

c) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶38

d) The Tribunal is directed to secure all the records of disciplinary proceedings and consider/appreciate the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶39

e) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional documents, if any, before the Tribunal, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶40

f) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10177-DB WP No. 102332 of 2023

¶43

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed off.

Sd JUDGE

Sd JUDGE

JTR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri S S Jadhav S/O Sadashiva (Shivaji Sadashiv Jadhav ) v. the Inspector General of Police (Igp)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S S Jadhav S/O Sadashiva (Shivaji Sadashiv Jadhav ) v. the Inspector General of Police (Igp)

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

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Shakuntala

Saask Developers Vs Mr Ramesh B S

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Shamshadabi Alias Sameerbi W/O Sri. Husen Patil

Shivayogi Urf Shrishail S/O. Shivaputrappa Katti, Occ. Agriculture Vs Dr. Krishnamurthy, Age Major

The State of Karnataka Vs S.M. Basanagoudar S/O Murigeppagoudar

Sri. Siddanagouda S/O Surendragouda Policepatil Vs Bellary Gas Company Hp Gas Dealer