Dismissed

Sri Thimmappa v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2023WP/5931/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition challenging an order initiating prosecution against the petitioner. The Court held that material for prosecution existed and noted that a previous decision indicated no cause of action accrued until a decision by the competent authority. It also stated that negative equality could not be enforced in writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

None

Sri Thimmappa Vs the Registrar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5931 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.5931 OF 2018 (GM-KLA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI THIMMAPPA, S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE-577526. HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI V. SHIVA REDDY, HCGP FOR R2)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PASSED THROUGH THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT [SERVICES - A] VIDE ANNEXURE-A, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PASSED THROUGH THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT [SERVICES-A] VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 5931 of 2018

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging impugned order bearing no.GraAaPa 6 ENQ 2017, Bengaluru, dated 17.06.2017 passed by respondent no.2 at Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.

¶22

Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was President of Andanuru Grama Panchayath from 14.11.2007 to 28.02.2010. On ground of irregularities committed during said period, respondent no.1 conducted an enquiry and submitted report on 12.04.2017 stating that there is material found about misappropriation of Panchayath funds under MNREGA scheme during year 20092010. In said report, departmental enquiry was recommended against officials, but criminal prosecution recommended only against petitioner by discriminating him. It was submitted that same indicated intention to protect officials by making petitioner as scapegoat. On said ground, learned counsel for petitioner sought for quashing of Annexure-A insofar as petitioner is concerned.

¶23

On other hand, Sri Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned

¶24

counsel for respondent no.1, at outset submitted that

¶25

¶26

WP No. 5931 of 2018

¶27

statement of objections was filed producing copy of preliminary enquiry report in pursuance of which impugned order came to be passed. It was contended that bare perusal of said report would indicate that after enquiry, prima facie material was found to substantiate several serious allegations against petitioner. Though, allegations may be common against petitioner as well as other officials, merely on ground that prosecution is not recommended against others, petitioner cannot seek for quashing of same. In fact, respondents had recommended for initiation of departmental enquiry against others involved in report submitted under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'KLA Act') at Annexure-R3 dated 12.04.2017. Therefore, action was initiated against all involved and therefore submitted that no interference was warranted.

¶28

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶29

papers.

¶30

Indeed, as contended, findings in preliminary enquiry report appears to be common insofar as officials as well as petitioner herein. But, material fact is that sufficient prima facie material was found for recommendation of prosecution against petitioner, though respondent ought to have

¶31

¶32

WP No. 5931 of 2018

¶33

recommended same against all those allegedly involved. But, this Court in W.P.no.105019/2017 , disposed of on 15.12.2008 , has held that merely on submission of report under Section 12 (3) of KLA Act, no cause of action would accrue to petitioner until decision is taken by respondent no.2 in pursuance of same. Till then, file would be pending with respondent no.1.

¶34

In any case, petitioner cannot be permitted to question initiation of prosecution against him, especially, on ground of discrimination. It is settled law that negative equality cannot be sought to enforce in writ jurisdiction.

¶35

Further, it would be available for respondents to consider initiation of criminal prosecution against others involved also even at stage of investigation/filing of charge sheet against petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

GRD

Sri Thimmappa v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thimmappa 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 Shylashree Vs Karnataka Housing Board

Nagappa S/O. Manjappa Honnura Vs Smt Gowramma W/O Late Manjappa

Sri Karethimmaiah @ Thimmaiah Vs Sri H Muddahanumaiah

Shri S B Ashok Vs Union of India

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Poornima

S a Thippeswamy Vs C M Ravindranath