Partly allowed

Shri.Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2023WP/106286/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Town Panchayat Chief Officer, challenged a penalty order withholding increments after a Lokayukta enquiry. The High Court found the authority failed to apply its mind to the petitioner's reply submitted against the penalty recommendation. The petition was partly allowed, quashing the order and directing the State to pass fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 07.06.2016 quashed; State directed to consider petitioner's reply and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Shri.Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 106286 OF 2016 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. RAMESH S/O DEVENDRAPPA GONDKAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN PANCHAYAT, KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶14

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶15

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.10.10 12:56:04 +0530

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.

¶17

THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶18

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.06.2016, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.NA AA E 39 DMK 2015 BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-N.

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶25

following prayer:

¶26

i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Order or Direction, quashing the impugned Order dated 07.06.2016, passed by the Respondent No.1 in No.NA AA E 39 DMK 2015 BENGALURU as per ANNEXURE-N.

¶27

ii) Issue any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction which deems fit to grant by this Hon’ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel Sri.A.S.Patil and the

¶29

learned AGA and Sri.D.L.Ladkhan for the respondents.

¶30

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶31

The petitioner was working as a Chief Officer of

¶32

the 3^rd respondent Town Panchayat between 20.05.2013

¶33

to 20.06.2016. The issue in the lis concerns the working of

¶34

the petitioner at that relevant point in time, a mid-term tender is issued inviting applications from eligible

¶35

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶36

tenderers to execute electrical work in respect of certain shops coming within the precincts of the town panchayat. Based upon the actions taken by the petitioner qua the tender becomes a subject matter of the proceedings before the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta in terms of the order of entrustment, issues a charge sheet against the petitioner concerning conduct of auction of shops 1 to 4 and a resultant financial loss that is caused on account of the action of the petitioner. The petitioner submits an explanation to the charge sheet which is found to be unsatisfactory and the Lokayukta conducts an enquiry against the petitioner. A recommendation being made for imposition of withholding of two annual increments of the petitioner in terms of the recommendation dated 15.02.2016. On the recommendation, the State issues the second show cause notice to the petitioner enclosing the reply and seeking to show cause as to why the penalty as was recommended by the Lokayukta should not be accepted.

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶38

The petitioner submits his detailed explanation

¶39

to the second show cause notice denying the allegations or

¶40

the observations made in the recommendation. The impugned order of penalty is passed of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect on 07.06.2016. It is this that drives the petitioner to this Court in subject petition.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶42

Sri.A.S.Patil would seek to restrict his submission for the present to the impugned order not considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice.

¶43

The learned counsel takes this Court through the order impugned seeking to demonstrate that it does not bear any reason or any semblance of application of mind by the authority which is required in law.

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit that the reply given by the petitioner bears consideration in the impugned order. There is nothing that would demonstrate that it suffers from non-application of mind and what is imposed is

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶46

penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, the petition be dismissed is the submission of the respondents.

¶47

I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶48

The afore narrated facts of what led the petitioner into the departmental enquiry is as narrated hereinabove, it would not require reiteration. In the light of the submissions being restricted to the passage of the impugned order on the score that it bears no application of mind, I deem it appropriate to notice the said order and the portion which refers to the consideration of the reply. The order reads as follows:

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶50

<��= **�** ��>4� � � � � �� 3*�+�6 �� ?� � @��A��#�� -��A��=�-*�� % � = �� .�� '��3� �� B)� <�)&�C�+ � �5�DE,�F��G� � � � ��.��#��'�� 5�% � � � :� � -�� .��#,�� '��H&��&+ � =�%�#�-�� .��#��3I� � ��/01�� 2�� 3�+�4� �� �� �� J� �' � � �1%�$K� 8� � �� + � � D�� 4��%�$K�2�� 4F� � �"%�&�8%�L#�% � J��6 �� = � 8% � (�&M�

¶51

� � �4�%� � 8% � ( � � � �N� � O��PQ�*<�� RSTU,� V � +6� � � � ,��NSW� XSYXRSTY

¶52

� � �� ' � � �� � � $K�� ! � �"��#C� � � � -� � � � � � $K�� � � � � �� $KC� � ��;%�#�% � �'�� ()�&�+ � ��% �� ),� -�� .��#��/01�� 2�� 3�+�4,� 5�$�� .��#,��/01�� 2,�� %�+ � �6 � ��#+ � <��= **�** ��>4� � � � � �� 3�+�6 �� ?� � @� � ��#�� -��A��=�-*�� % � = �� .� � �"%�&�� '��3� �� B),�<�)&C�+ � �5�DE,�F��G� � � � ��.��#,��'�� 5�% � � � :� � -�� .��#,� � � � �� '�� H&��&+ � =�%�#�-�� .��#�� +�6� K� � �?P�Z��A� ��/01�� 2�� 3�+�4�� �� ��J��' � � �1%�$K� 8� � �� + � � DC�8% � �� "%�&�

¶53

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶54

�� 5 � = � %�L$K��'��3� �� B)� <�)&�C�+ � �5�DE,�F��G� � � � ��.��#,��'�� 5�% � � � :C� -�� .��#,�� '��H&��&+ � =�%�#�-�� .��#�� +�6� K� � �?P�Z��A��/01�� 2� �� 3�+�4� �� +�6 � �� [ V � +�6 �� = � � � �� O5�4#%L � � �� O��;+�6� K� �� = � � � �� O5�4#� � �� &M�

¶55

All that the impugned order refers to is the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice and the recommendation made by the Upa Lokayukta. There is no semblance of application of mind on the part of the respondent State while accepting the recommendation of the Lokayukta and rejecting the reply tendered by the petitioner to the second show cause notice.

¶56

A perusal at the reply would indicate that the petitioner has in fact submitted his reasons as to why the State should not accept the recommendation of the Upa Lokayukta for imposition of penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. If the reply submitted

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶58

and the order passed are seen in tandem, it would unmistakably reveal non-application of mind on the part of the authorities reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (dead) by LRs. and others vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 431. The Apex Court has held as follows:

¶59

“11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.

¶60

Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742 (CA)] observed : (All ER p. 1154h) “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed:“Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in

¶61

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶62

question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance.”

¶63

On this short ground, the order requires reconsideration at the hands of the State.

¶64

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶67

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9997 WP No. 106286 of 2016

¶68

The order dated 07.06.2016 stands quashed. The State is directed to consider the reply of the petitioner submitted to the second show cause notice and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, if not earlier.

¶69

All other contentions that are not answered, are left open.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

rsh/ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Shri.Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Deepali Lengade Vs Sri Sandeep Lengade

Mr Alok Kumar Vs Mr Mallikarjun B M @ Ravi

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Canara Bank

Smt.T.Y.Varajakshi W/O Hanumanthappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt.Lakshmi D/O Durugappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Shankar S/O Veerappa Shimpi Vs the Principal Secretary to