The petitioner retired after the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal remitted his disciplinary case for issuing a second show cause notice. The bench observed it was not appropriate to grant relief to a retired employee, rejected the writ petition, and dismissed the challenge to the Tribunal's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 19790 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: High Court of Karnataka
N SRINIVASA, S/O LATE V NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RETIRED), R/AT NO.125, 13TH CROSS, JAYAMAHALA EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560046
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
WP No. 19790 of 2022
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R3, SMT. B.MANJULA D, ADV. FOR R4.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, QUASH THE LATER PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/09/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NO.4232/2021, REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SECOND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALONG WITH THE ENQUIRY REPORT AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER THEREON ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
WP No. 19790 of 2022
Tribunal was whether the omission to issue second show cause notice and failure to annex copy of the enquiry report and the recommendation letter of the Upalokayukta vitiates the impugned order. The Tribunal after appreciating the facts of the case and law in this regard has been pleased to observe in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:
“7. One of the contention raised by the applicant in his application is that without issuing second show cause notice and without furnishing the copy of the enquiry report and the recommendation letter of the Hon’ble Upalokayukga, the respondent authorities proceeded to pass the penalty order as against the applicant vide Annexure-A24. In this regard, we have perused the original file secured from the learned Government Pleader, there is no material to show that second show cause notice was served on the applicant herein. When second show cause notice itself is not served, the question of submitting the reply to the said notice by the applicant does not arise at all. From the original file, we have perused the records wherein copy of the second show cause notice dated 7.11.2019 is there in the file and it is signed by one Lakshmisagar N.K., Under Secretary to Government, Urban
WP No. 19790 of 2022
Development Department, BBMP. Looking to the contents of this second show cause notice, it goes to show that copy of the enquiry report was annexed with the said notice, but there is no mention in the second show cause notice that even the copy of the recommendation letter made by Hon’ble Upalokayukta for imposing the penalty is also annexed. In this connection, we are referring to the decision of this Tribunal reported in 2009 KSLJ 451 rendered in the case of JAMES VINCENT TEXEIRE
& ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS . Therefore, the copy of the recommendation letter of the Hon’ble Upalokayukta for imposing particular penalty is also to be annexed with the second show cause notice, which is not done as per the contents of the second show cause notice itself. Another aspect to be taken note of is as per the contention of the respondent authorities, the second show cause notice was issued to the applicant herein on 7.11.2019 to be served to the applicant through the BBMP Commissioner. But, in the penalty order under Annexure-A24, wherein it is stated inspite of issuance of second show cause notice, the applicant has not submitted his reply and they waited for a period of one year four months and then proceeded to pass the order. This also goes to show that if really the second show
WP No. 19790 of 2022
cause notice was issued giving fifteen days time to the applicant herein and if he did not submit his reply, the respondent authorities could have proceeded to pass the penalty order immediately after the expiry of fifteen days as mentioned in the second show cause notice, but the contention of the disciplinary authority in the penalty order under Annexure-A24 that they waited for a period of one year four months appears to be most improbable and unnatural and on the contrary this fact also supports and probabilise the contention of the applicant herein that no such second show cause notice was served on the applicant. Even looking to the penalty order under Annexure-A24, the references are at Sl.Nos.1 to 6, so Sl.No.6 is the second show cause notice. Though it is referred in the penalty order, but it is for the disciplinary authority to place the material to show that second show cause notice annexing the copy of the enquiry report was served on the applicant herein and after making such service, if the applicant did not send his reply, then the disciplinary can proceed to pass the order stating that the reply is not submitted.
8. Therefore, looking to the materials, we are of the considered view that as there is no material to prove the factum that second show cause
WP No. 19790 of 2022
notice has been served on the applicant herein annexing the copy of the enquiry report, in our considered view the penalty order under AnnexureA24 dated 7.7.2021 passed by the 1st respondent is not sustainable in law. Hence, the applicant has made out a case.”
paragraph 9 as under:
“9. To that extent, application is allowed, impugned order of penalty bearing No. £ÀCE 82 JAJ£ïAiÀÄÄ 2017 dated 7.7.2021 passed by the first respondent and produced vide Annexure-A24 is quashed in so far as the applicant is concerned. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to issue the second show cause notice to the applicant by annexing copy of the enquiry report and the recommendation letter of the Hon’ble Upalokayukta giving fifteen days time to the applicant from the date of receipt of such notice to submit his reply. If the reply is submitted, then the disciplinary authority can proceed to pass appropriate order. Even if the applicant did not furnish such reply within fifteen days from the date of receipt of second show cause notice, the disciplinary authority can proceed to pass
WP No. 19790 of 2022
appropriate order.”
ground which warrants our interference with the well considered order. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
ykl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed despite the retirement of the petitioner from service.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order after the petitioner retired.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
JAMES VINCENT TEXEIRE & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERSReferred¶32
2009 KSLJ 451
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N SRINIVASA
STATE OF KARNATAKA (BBMP)
STATE OF KARNATAKA (PUBLIC WORKS)
BRHUAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
G. NARENDAR
S RACHAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
