Allowed

Sri B S Sridhar v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023WP/52525/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging an order by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and a consequent compensation memorandum. The Court quashed both orders for denying the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 16 of the Human Rights Act, 1993.

What did the court decide?

Impugned report and consequent compensation memorandum dated 08.07.2018 were quashed.

Sri B S Sridhar Vs the Registrar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 52525 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.52525 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI B S SRIDHAR S/O SOMAIAH, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PSI, HULAGURU POLICE STATION, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, IV FLOOR, V PHASE, M.S.BUILDING, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH RANGE, MYSURU.

¶16

THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA

¶17

SRI.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH AGE MAJOR,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 52525 of 2018

¶20

R/AT NO.72, 8TH CROSS ROAD, AVANI SRINGERI NAGARA, NYANAPPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT, 6TH STAGE, IIM POST, B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP., FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. THIRTHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.03.2016 PASSED BY TEH R-1 AT ANNEXURE-J IN HRC NO.2296/2014 (SB-2) CONSEQUENTLY THE MEMORANDUM DATED 08.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-4 AT ANNEXURE-L.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED MEMORANDUM DATED 08.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Challenging impugned order dated 01.03.2016 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure - J bearing HRC no.2296/2014(SB-2) and Memorandum dated 08.07.2018 issued by respondent no.4 in no.CB(2)/165/2018 at AnnexureL, this writ petition is filed.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 52525 of 2018

¶29

Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for petitioner submitted respondent no.5 filed a complaint alleging that petitioner herein while working as P.S.I. at Maddur Police Station detained an Eicher Goods Vehicle (canter) bearing registration no.KA-51-B/2264 unnecessarily and due to which respondent no.5 sustained loss. On said ground, respondent no.5 filed application before respondent no.1 for action against petitioner.

¶30

Upon said complaint, respondent no.1 passed impugned report dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure-J), holding petitioner was guilty of dereliction of duty and recommending action against petitioner and also directed respondent no.4 to compensate respondent no.5 fully by recovering it from petitioner.

¶31

In terms of said recommendation, respondent no.4 issued Memorandum dated on 08.07.2018 (Annexure-L) directing petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to respondent no.5. Assailing same, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

It was submitted that prior to issuing impugned report/recommendation and memorandum, petitioner was not

¶33

¶34

WP No. 52525 of 2018

¶35

afforded any opportunity of hearing by respondent no.1, even though respondent no.1 was determining, whether petitioner was guilty of dereliction of duty and whether respondent no.5 was required to be compensated. Therefore, same was arbitrary and illegal and requires to be quashed. It was further submitted that respondent no.5 in proceedings before respondent no.1 had sworn to affidavit as per Annexure-M, wherein detention of vehicle illegally by petitioner was disputed and same would also be material aspect insofar as instant proceedings are concerned.

¶36

It was submitted that petitioner had already suffered punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of two years, and therefore, passing of award by respondent no.1 would amount to imposing punishment twice for same incident and hit by principle against double jeopardy. Hence, sought for allowing writ petition.

¶37

Sri. Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no.1 – Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, submitted that against impugned recommendation, petitioner is having efficacious remedy seeking review as per Regulation 22 of Karnataka State Human Rights (Procedure) Regulations, 2007

¶38

¶39

WP No. 52525 of 2018

¶40

(for short 'regulation') and without exercising same, petitioner

¶41

had approached this Court and therefore, writ petition was not maintainable.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent no.5 sought to

¶43

support recommendation and order.

¶44

Heard learned counsel.

¶45

On perusal of impugned recommendation and Memorandum, it is seen that proceedings were initiated by respondent no.1 - Human Rights Commission under provisions of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 16 of which reads as follows:

¶46

" 16. Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard.- If , at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission -

¶47

(a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person; or

¶48

(b) is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, it shall give to the person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence:

¶49

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply where the credit of a witness is being impeached."

¶50

Any person against whom two proceedings are to be conducted would require to be afforded

¶51

¶52

WP No. 52525 of 2018

¶53

opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in his defence.

¶54

Bare perusal of impugned report (Annexure-J) submitted by respondent no.1 would indicate that such opportunity was denied to petitioner, determination regarding dereliction of duty and issuance of recommendation which is in nature of direction to respondent no.4 to recover entire loss from petitioner would impose severe civil consequence. Consequently, mandating petitioner to be heard.

¶55

Since said opportunity is denied at threshold, impugned order would call for interference. Insofar as nonexhaustion of alternative remedy of review under Regulation 22, High Court of Calcutta has in Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd., v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.¹ , , held that revision is not an efficacious alternative remedy. Even Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently in case of

¶56

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v/s Excise and Taxation Officer² ,

¶57

held that existence of alternative remedy in any case would not be a total bar against exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of Constitution of India. As there is violation with principles of

¶58

1 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 738

¶59

2023 SCC OnLine SC 95

¶60

¶61

WP No. 52525 of 2018

¶62

natural justice as prescribed under Section 16(a) of the Act, said contention is rejected and it is held that impugned recommendation and consequent memorandum call for interference on said ground alone.

¶63

Hence, writ petition is allowed.

¶64

Impugned report/recommendation dated 01.03.2016 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure - J bearing HRC no.2296/2014(SB-2) and Memorandum dated 08.07.2018 issued by respondent no.4 in no.CB(2)/165/2018 at Annexure-L, are quashed.

¶65

However, liberty is reserved to respondent no.1 to redo exercise after affording adequate opportunity to petitioner of being heard and produce material on his behalf.

¶66

It is clarified that even respondent no.5 would be at liberty to produce additional material on his behalf.

¶67

Since incident is of 9 years vintage, respondent no.1 shall endeavour to conclude proceedings expeditiously, but in accordance with law.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

Psg*

Sri B S Sridhar v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B S Sridhar v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Munilakshmamma Vs Sri Mallesha Reddy

Dr. Akshay Patil Vs Karnataka Medical Council

M/S Sri Gayathri Service Station Vs the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Smt. Meharunnisa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Punjab National Bank

The SBI General Insurance Vs Insurance Ombudsman