Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Shivaprasad B S

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024/12259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order granting the respondent police constable Special Disability Leave after an ischemic stroke occurred during assigned investigative duties. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the leave was mandated under relevant service rules.

What did the court decide?

Special Disability Leave for the period of absence and release of salary with 6% interest ordered to be complied.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Shivaprasad B S — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 12259 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME

¶12

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL CID SPECIAL WING AND ECONOMIC OFFENCES CARLTON BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI. SHIVAPRASAD B.S. S/O R. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶21

CIVIL HEAD CONSTABLE IN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE IN CID BENGALURU-560 001 R/AT. NO.280, 8^TH MAIN PIPELINE, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 040

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ORDER DATED 12.07.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1154/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶27

The present petition is preferred by the State and the Police challenging the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), pursuant to an application preferred by the respondent in Application No. 1154 of 2023 for grant of ‘Special Disability Leave’.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶29

The respondent herein was initially appointed as

¶30

a Civil Police Constable on 25.02.2003, and was thereafter working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at CID, Bengaluru. While so, the third petitioner issued an order dated 29.09.2019 assigning the respondent and others for investigation of Crime Nos.221/2018 and 35/2014, and permitting the respondent on 30.04.2019 to leave the premises for the purpose of conducting said investigation.

¶31

While discharging his duties, on 11.05.2019, the respondent suffered an acute ischemic stroke on the right side of his body for which was rushed to Gangavathi Hospital for first aid treatment, and was thereafter taken to Fortis Hospital for further treatment. The respondent is said to have been absent from work for a total of 838 days (between 11.05.2019 and 25.08.2021), in respect of which representations were made by him to consider said leave as ‘Special Disability Leave’ under Rules 136 and 137 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCSR' for short). An endorsement

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶33

dated 25.04.2022 was issued by the third petitioner herein indicating that the respondent’s case was not considered under Rules 136 and 137 of the KCSR since he suffered the stroke while he was not on duty. Consequently, the second petitioner issued the endorsement dated 11.08.2022 stating that his claim for consideration of his absence as ‘Special Disability Leave’ was rejected on the ground that Rules 136 and 137 of the KCSR would apply only if a government servant has sustained accidental injuries in the course of performance of his official duties,

¶34

and stated that since the respondent suffered "geriatric paralysis" while resting after returning from duty, his representations could not be considered.

¶35

Aggrieved by this endorsement, the respondent

¶36

preferred Application No. 1154 of 2023 before the Tribunal seeking quashing of said endorsement and, consequently, sanction of the special disability leave for the period of absence.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶38

The Tribunal examined Rules 136 and 137 of the

¶39

KCSR vis-à-vis Section 26(2) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 to hold that a police officer who is not on leave or suspension is deemed to always be on duty and the ‘special disability leave’ provided under Rules 136 and 137 of the KCSR would thus have to apply. With these findings, the Tribunal proceeded to set aside the endorsement dated 11.08.2022 and directed the petitioners herein to sanction ‘Special Disability Leave’ for the aforementioned period of leave availed by the respondent. Furthermore, a

¶40

direction was also issued to release the respondent’s salary for said period, along with 6% interest. It is against this order of the Tribunal has the present petition been filed.

¶41

We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners.

¶42

It is submitted by the learned AGA that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Section 26 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was misconceived as a plain

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶44

reading of the provision, which shows that it is only for the purpose of the said Act that a Police Officer would be deemed to be on duty. It is submitted that since the grant of 'special disability leave' is specifically covered by the provisions of Rules 136 and 137 of the KCSR, the only question to be considered was whether the respondent was actually on duty when he suffered ischemic stroke. It is submitted that for the application of the provisions with regard to special disability leave, it must be shown that the Government Servant is disabled by an injury caused in consequence of due performance of his official duties or in consequence of his official position.

¶45

It is further contended that an ischemic stroke

¶46

cannot be said to be an injury suffered in or in consequence of due performance of the official duties. It is also submitted that it was after his official duty was over and while he was resting at Sri International Hotel at Gangavathi, he had suffered the stroke and, therefore, he

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶49

is not entitled to the 'special disability leave' in terms of

¶50

Rules 136 and 137 of the KCSR.

¶51

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the special disability leave is provided when a Government servant is disabled by an injury caused in due performance of his official duties. In the instant case, it is not in dispute before us that the respondent had been assigned official duties with regard to the investigation of certain crimes. It was admittedly while he was on duty attending to investigation of the aforementioned crime that the ischemic stroke occurred and the respondent was disabled due to the same. Though it is averred by the learned AGA that earned leave and half-pay leave had been granted to the officer, that cannot be a reason to deny 'special disability leave', if the officer is entitled to the same in terms of the Rules in force.

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶53

The Tribunal has specifically considered the contention that the respondent-officer was not on duty at the relevant time. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that said contentions cannot be accepted in the light of the provisions of Section 26 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. However, in the light of the fact that he had been assigned the investigation of a crime and it was during the course of said investigation that the ischemic stroke occurred, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, that said stroke has occurred in the course of the

¶54

duty or as a consequence thereof, cannot be said to be an erroneous conclusion. Having given our anxious consideration to the order of the Tribunal and the materials on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:26516-DB WP No. 12259 of 2024

¶57

This writ petition fails, and the same is

¶58

accordingly dismissed .

¶59

However, in the light of the request made by the learned AGA, further time of four weeks is granted to the petitioners to comply with the directions of the Tribunal.

¶60

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Shivaprasad B S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Shivaprasad B S

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

Sri K G Hanumanthaiah, Vs Sri Yogesh

Smt. C. a. Damanyanthi Vs the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka

Ramachandran v Vs Union of India

The Karnataka Examination Authority Vs the State of Karnataka

S M Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

The Government Tool Room and Training Centre Vs M/S Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Ltd.