Disposed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri M J Thimmegowda

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024/20191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State challenged a Tribunal order setting aside a Show Cause Notice for failing to record reasons for differing from Enquiry Officer's findings. The High Court held the authority may re-issue the notice within six weeks if reasons exist based on enquiry material only, failing which the respondent is entitled to retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the petitioner to issue a Show Cause Notice recording reasons for differing from the Enquiry Officer's findings within six weeks, if such reasons are available on the basis of mate

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri M J… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 20191 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG, A/W. SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. M.J. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RETIRED AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ R/AT. NO.44/1, MELAHALLY PERIYAPATNA POST MYSURU DISTRICT-577 107

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. M. NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE & SRI. SATHEESH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (a) CALL

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶21

FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2023 IN APPLICATION No.4420/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the State of Karnataka

¶27

seeking the following prayers:-

¶28

i. "Call for the records pertaining to the Order dated 16.08.2023 in Application No.4420/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Bengaluru (Annexure - A);

¶29

ii. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction for quashing/setting aside the Order dated 16.08.2023 in Application No.4420/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Bengaluru (Annexure - A)."

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶31

We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate

¶33

General that the real reasons for filing this writ petition is

¶34

only with regard to the right of the petitioner to correct the technical defects found by the Tribunal in the second Show Cause Notice issued to the private respondent and its right to re-start the proceedings at the stage where it stood vitiated. It is submitted that an enquiry has been conducted as against the private respondent and the charges against him were found to be not proved in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings in the enquiry and had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 20.01.2016 seeking to differ with the findings in the enquiry. It is submitted that after considering the contentions advanced, the Tribunal came to the conclusion

¶35

that said Show Cause Notice did not record reasons for differing from the findings in the enquiry. It is submitted

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶37

that the Show Cause Notice dated 20.01.2016 and the

¶38

further proceedings on the basis of the same were set aside by the Tribunal. However, it is contended that since the finding was specifically that the reasons were not recorded in the second Show Cause Notice, petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to record the reasons, if there were such reasons available and to continue with the proceedings, which was not done in the instant case on the ground that the petitioner had defended and justified the Show Cause Notice issued in

¶39

the pleadings before the Tribunal. It is therefore contended that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to issue a proper notice recording the reasons, if such reasons are available and to continue with the proceedings.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. A.Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶42

to contend that the Apex Court has clearly held in several decisions that in case there is a technical defect noticed at any stage of the disciplinary proceedings, the authority is entitled to continue the proceedings from the stage where they stand vitiated by such error.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, on the other hand, contends that there were absolutely no reasons available for differing from the findings in the enquiry. It is submitted that pleadings placed on record before the Tribunal would show that the petitioner herein was relying on material which was extraneous to the enquiry proceedings for proceeding against the private respondent. It is submitted that going by the provisions of Rule 11-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCS (CCA) Rules' for short) any differing from the finding of the Enquiry Officer must be confined to the material which is available in the enquiry and extraneous material cannot be relied on for such purpose. It is contended that

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶45

after considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had held that there is no scope for permitting the issuance of the second Show Cause Notice afresh in the instant case. It is submitted that pleadings would show that the petitioner was seeking to rely on other materials which were not placed in the enquiry for the purpose of proceeding as against the respondent.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondent would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj

¶47

Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2718 to contend that where the disciplinary authority differs with a view of the Enquiry Officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted and finally, that it is only on material available in the enquiry that the reasons to be recorded for differing from the finding of the Enquiry Officer can be raised.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶50

Having considered the contentions advanced, we

¶51

notice that the second Show Cause Notice issued to the private respondent on 23.11.2018 only records a disagreement with the findings in the enquiry. It does not record the reasons for such disagreement. We are therefore in agreement with the Tribunal that the said Show Cause Notice issued was not in accordance with Rule 11-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules. However, it is clear that it is on account of the fact that proper reasons had not been recorded in the second Show Cause Notice that the Tribunal had set aside the Show Cause Notice and further proceedings issued on the basis of the same.

¶52

In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to examine whether there are proper reasons available to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the materials, which were available in the inquiry. If such reasons are available, it is open for them to issue a second Show Cause Notice. However, it is to be noticed that after

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶54

issuance of the second Show Cause Notice, which has now been found against by the Tribunal, the private respondent

¶55

has retired from service in the year 2020. Therefore, the provisions of Rules 2 and 4 of the KCS (CCA) Rules shall also be borne in mind by the petitioner. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner comes to a conclusion that the proceedings have to be continued after issuance of second Show Cause Notice, such notice will be confined to reasons to be recorded on the basis of the materials on record in the enquiry and no extraneous material shall be relied on.

¶56

We therefore, order in this writ petition directing

¶57

that in case, there is reason available on the basis of the material produced before the Enquiry Officer to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner shall examine the matter and issue a Show Cause Notice recording the reasons for differing from the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, such Show Cause Notice shall be issued within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such Show Cause Notice is

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:30557-DB WP No. 20191 of 2024

¶59

not issued within six weeks, it will be considered that there is no reason for differing from the findings of the enquiry and the respondent will be entitled for all his retirement benefits. In case, the petitioner issues the second Show Cause Notice within six weeks as provided, the proceedings shall be completed within a period of two months thereafter. The private respondent shall also co-

¶60

operate for the completion of the enquiry within the said time. The direction issued by the Tribunal with regard to settling the retirement benefits shall stand modified as directed above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed

¶61

of.

¶62

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶64

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

The State of Karnataka v. Sri M J Thimmegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri M J Thimmegowda

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. M. Seenappa

Sri K.C. Shivanna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Latha H.R., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Ganesh Rao

Sri Nanjegowda M J Vs State of Karnataka