Partly allowed

Sri Munawar Pasha v. Teh Chief Executive Officer

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023WP/4677/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an inquiry report obtained during the petitioner's counsel's death and directed a fresh inquiry within three months. The Court also mandated payment of salary and pension arrears based on the pre-punishment scale.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of inquiry report dated 25-08-2021; direction for fresh inquiry; payment of salary and pension arrears.

Sri Munawar Pasha Vs Teh Chief Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46535 WP No. 4677 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 4677 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MUNAWAR PASHA, S/O N.E. MOHAMMED GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT DISTRICT WAKF OFFICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. R/AT 3839, 5^TH MAIN, KARNAPURA ROAD, NR MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 007.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SURESH S LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI H.L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS, NO.6, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶13

THE CHAIRMAN AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶14

SRI M G HIREMATH, RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:46535 WP No. 4677 of 2021

¶17

AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT S.R. ANURADHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SABAHATH SULTANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2; NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W V/O DATED 15.04.2021)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE ISSUED UNDER REGULATION NO.24 OF THE KARNATAKA WAQF REGULATIONS 2013 (NOTICE UNDER RULE 11 OF KCS (CCA) RULES 1957) DATED.24.4.2019 ALONG WITH ARTICLES OF CHARGE, STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND LIST OF WITNESSES PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L (NOTICE NO.1) AND (ii) NOTICE ISSUED UNDER REGULATION NO.24 OF THE KARNATAKA WAQF REGULATIONS 2013 (NOTICE UNDER RULE 11 OF KCS (CCA) RULES 1957 DATED 24.4.2019 ALONG WITH ARTICLES OF CHARGE STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND LIST OF WITNESS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M (NOTICE NO.2) ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

On 28-02-2013, a chargesheet was issued against

¶24

the petitioner, leveling two charges.

¶25

An order of punishment was also imposed on 24-07-

¶26

2013, by which his pay scale was reduced to the lower

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46535 WP No. 4677 of 2021

¶28

stage and his pay was refixed at Rs.11,600/- per month with effect from 01-07-2013.

¶29

The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board and the Board passed an order on 12-12-2013, setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority, that is, the Chief Executive Officer, and remitted the matter to the Chief Executive Officer with a direction to hold a fresh inquiry and afford an opportunity to the petitioner herein.

¶30

This order of the Appellate Authority was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 7596-7597/2014, which was disposed of on 29-06-2015 by making a slight modification to the order of the Appellate Authority. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner and it is therefore, clear that the order of the Appellate Authority, setting aside the order of punishment, was accepted by the Board.

¶31

In the year 2015, the petitioner preferred W.P.No. 39604/2015 for a direction to conclude the inquiry within a reasonable period and this Court, by an order dated

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46535 WP No. 4677 of 2021

¶33

22-02-2019, directed that the inquiry should be concluded

¶34

within a period of four months. Thereafter, the Board has proceeded to issue a fresh chargesheet incorporating not only not only the earlier charges, but also additional charges. In all, 13 charges were leveled against the petitioner. During the pendency of this inquiry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and was permitted to retire from 30-06-2021.

¶35

After the petitioner retired, an Inquiry Report has been submitted, whereby the charges against the petitioner have been withheld. In this writ petition, an interim order had been granted on 06-04-2021 that the inquiry shall be continued, but no final order shall be passed based on the inquiry report without leave of the Court.

¶36

The learned Counsel submits that the inquiry that was conducted was fundamentally flawed since it was irregular, inasmuch as the petitioner did not have a chance to defend himself as his counsel had passed away. It was

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46535 WP No. 4677 of 2021

¶38

submitted that the proceedings have been concluded after

¶39

the petitioner's counsel had passed away and it was therefore, essentially, an exparte inquiry which had been conducted against the petitioner. This fact is not disputed. It is admitted that the counsel of the petitioner did pass away during the pendency of the inquiry and the inquiry

¶40

has been conducted in his absence. It is however submitted that after the death of the petitioner's counsel, petitioner was in fact, issued with two notices, but the petitioner did not respond to the same.

¶41

In my view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner's counsel passed away during the pendency of the inquiry and the petitioner did not participate in the inquiry, it would be appropriate to direct the Wakf Board to conduct a fresh inquiry and conclude the same within a period of three months.

¶42

The petitioner shall appear before the Inquiry Officer on 2nd January 2024, and to take further instructions. It is made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate with the

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46535 WP No. 4677 of 2021

¶44

inquiry and the Inquiry Officer shall ensure that the inquiry is completed within a period of three months.

¶45

Consequently, the inquiry report dated 25-08-2021, which has now been submitted shall stand quashed.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though the order of reduction of the pay of the petitioner was set aside by the Appellate Authority way back in the year 2013, the petitioner has been paid only the pay scale in the lower stage and even his pension has been fixed in accordance with the lower pay scale. In my view, since the order of punishment was set aside the Appellate Authority and had attained finality, the Wakf Board would be bound to pay the petitioner the pay scale that he was drawing prior to the imposition of the punishment. In fact, in the affidavit, it is admitted that prior to the imposition of punishment, the petitioner was being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.16,000/- and it is this pay scale that the petitioner will be entitled to not only

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:46535 WP No. 4677 of 2021

¶48

till the date of his retirement, but also for the purpose of fixation of his pension.

¶49

The Board shall accordingly pay the petitioner the salary in the pay scale of Rs.16,000/- that the petitioner was entitled to, including any increments that he would be entitled to. The said arrears of salary and also the arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶51

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Munawar Pasha v. Teh Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Munawar Pasha v. Teh Chief Executive Officer

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

Mr Zakir Hussain Vs the Commissioner for Collegiate

Sri C N Satheesh Vs Union of India

Smt Geethanjali Vs the State of Karnataka

Prasanna Kumar a v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prasanna Kumar K M Vs M/S Vokkaligara Sangha

Smt Indra N Vs the State of Karnataka