Allowed

Shri. Yallappa Shankar Inamdar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2023WP/106643/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of a departmental enquiry application. Finding the Tribunal failed to appreciate evidence and the acquittal aspect, the Court set aside impugned orders and remanded the matter to the KAT at Belagavi for reconsideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by Respondent 1 (GO dated 10.09.2014) and KAT (Order dated 17.03.2017) set aside; matter remitted to KAT, Belagavi for reconsideration; liberty for additional pleadings.

Shri. Yallappa Shankar Inamdar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND 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. 106643 OF 2017 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI YALLAPPA SHANKAR INAMDAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: RETD. SHERISTEDAR NOW AT H.NO. 56, SHIDRAMESHWAR COLONY, KUDACHI ROAD, JAMAKHANDI-587301, DT: BAGALKOT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶14

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.29 11:14:09 +0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (EST-2), M S BUILDING, VIDHAN VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE ADDL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-4, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHAN VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. BAGALKOT-587101.

¶18

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S BUILDING, VIDHAN VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶22

(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3) (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED:10.09.2014 AT ANNEXURE-"M" PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 AT ANNEXURE-"N" PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENAGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.8056/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO RE-INSTATE THE PETITIONER IN TO SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL AND MONETARY BENEFITS. QUASH THE REPORT NO.COMPT/UPLOK/BGM/ 62/2007/ARE8 DATED:29.08.2009 AT ANNEXURE-"F" UNDER SECTION 12(3) OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT BY THE HON'BLE UPA-LOKAYUKTA, AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENTIAL GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. PÀAE 51 ©R¦ 2009 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆGÀÄ, DATED:15.10.2009 AT ANNEXURE-"F1" PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEM IN ENQUIRY NO.ENQ45/2009 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-K BEARING NO. LOK/ARE/4/14-1/ENQ-45/2009 AS NULL AND VOID ILLEGAL AND BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition by the unsuccessful applicant in Application No.8056/2014 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the KAT’), whereby the said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶28

The material on record discloses that pursuant to the an alleged incident i.e., said to have occurred on 27.01.2006 the criminal case under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was foisted against the petitioner, which resulted in acquittal of the petitioner on 17.04.2008 pursuant to which the petitioner was promoted as Sheristedar on 25.08.2008. Subsequently on the basis of a purported investigation said to have been conducted suo motu by the Upa-Lokayukta infact under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act, 1984’) a report under Section 12(3) of the said Act, 1984 was submitted by the Upa-Lokayukta to the State

¶29

- 4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶30

Government who in turn passed an order dated 15.10.2009 invoking Rule 14(A) under the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, thereby entrusting enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta. In pursuance of the same, Upa-Lokayukta issued articles of charges after providing an opportunity to the petitioner and proceeded to submit a report holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved and made a recommendation to the State Government to impose the major penalty of compulsory retirement. Pursuant thereto, the State Government proceeded to accept the report of the Upa-Lokayukta as well as recommendation and imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement on 10.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant application and since there was no interim order passed by the KAT, the petitioner was constrained to retire from the service. Ultimately, the KAT proceeded to dismiss the application vide impugned order which is assailed in the present petition.

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶32

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA as well as learned counsel for Lokayukta appearing for respondents.

¶33

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings commencing from purported suo motu investigation by the Lokayukta and culminating in the impugned punishment order were vitiated and contrary to the material on record as well as provisions contained in the Lokayukta Act as well as KCS (CCA) Rules. It is submitted that though the Upa-Lokayukta is said to have commenced suo motu investigation against the petitioner after his Honourable acquittal in the criminal case, the said suo motu investigation was infact not even conducted and the report under Section 12(3) was submitted by the Lokayukta only on the basis of charge sheet filed in the criminal case without any further investigation/enquiry and merely on the basis of charge

¶34

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶35

sheet without considering or appreciating that prior to alleged suo motu investigation/enquiry, the petitioner had already been Honourably acquitted in Special Case No.62/2006. It was also contended that in the face of Honourable acquittal of the petitioner in the Special Case No.62/2006, the Departmental Enquiry was also impermissible in law on the same set of facts as well as

¶36

on the basis of the same oral and documentary evidence on record. Learned counsel further submits that once the initiation of Departmental Enquiry based on a non existent investigation/enquiry by the Lokayukta is held to be bad in law, all further proceedings including punishment/order of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner would also have to be declared non est and void and set aside.

¶37

It was further submitted that though the original complainant who was examined as P.W.6 in the criminal case P.W.1 in the Departmental Enquiry turned completely hostile and did not support the case of the respondents, the Enquiry Officer as well as KAT

¶38

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶39

committed an error in not considering this aspect of the matter, which was sufficient to vitiate the impugned report and orders. Learned counsel also submitted that apart from the higher discrepant, inconsistent and mutual contradictory evidence of the witnesses including the shadow witness, who was examined as P.W.2 in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings, there was no other legal and acceptable evidence adduced during the course of Departmental Enquiry to form the basis to hold that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him. Lastly, it was submitted that due to oversight and inadvertence, various other contentions were not properly and completely presented before the KAT, which resulted in impugned order and as such, if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner would put forth all the contentions before the KAT by filing additional pleadings in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that though the incident occurred on 27.01.2006, the delay of more

¶40

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶41

than three and half years in initiating the Departmental Enquiry is also a circumstance to vitiate the impugned proceedings.

¶42

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the Lokayukta would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶43

A perusal of the impugned material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the main ground on which the KAT has rejected the application filed by the petitioner is that mere acquittal in a criminal case would not ipso facto result in exonerating the petitioner of his charges in Enquiry Proceedings. Further, despite having referred to the contention of the petitioner that the evidence adduced by the respondents was inconsistent and discrepant and that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were based on no evidence, the Tribunal has not chosen to consider or appreciate the said evidence which is sufficient to vitiate the impugned order. It is also relevant to state

¶44

- 9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶45

that the various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition for the purpose of assailing the impugned Enquiry Report and the impugned penalty order have also not been considered or appreciated by the KAT. Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by

¶46

the KAT and remit the matter back to the KAT for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law within the stipulated time frame.

¶47

In the result, we pass the following :

¶48

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶49

(ii) The impugned order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the 1^st respondent as well as order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.8056/2014 are hereby set aside.

¶50

(iii) Since the Bench of the KAT has now been constituted/established at Belagavi, which has territorial jurisdiction to decide the application,

¶51

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11101-DB WP No. 106643 of 2017

¶52

the matter is remitted back to the file of KAT, Belagavi for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶53

(iv) The KAT, Belagavi is directed to list the matter for hearing on 25.10.2023 on which date both sides will appear before the KAT, Belagavi. The KAT, Belagavi is also directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from 25.10.2023.

¶54

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file additional pleadings, objections, documents, etc., before the KSAT, Belagavi which shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

CKK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 79

Shri. Yallappa Shankar Inamdar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Yallappa Shankar Inamdar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sharanappa Vs Nayaz Bash

The State of Karnataka Repr by Dire General Nd Insp Genl of Police No 2 Nrupatunga Road Bengaluru Vs Gurangoueda

Smt. Daulatbi W/O Ismailsab Bannikatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivanand Basayya Vibhootimath Vs Smt. Pallavi @ Sangeeta W/O Shivanand Vibhootimath

Shri. Andanappa Naragund S/O Mallappa Naragund Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Vanita Wd/O Santosh Mendole Vs Shri.Suresh Maruti Benni