Partly allowed

Principal Chief Security Commissioner v. Sri. T. C. Raghvendra

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024WA/681/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ上诉challenges a single judge order that set aside a dismissal order and granted reinstatement. The High Court allowed the writ petition partially, confirming the invalidity of dismissing without reasons but setting aside the grant of consequential benefits pending enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of dismissal order quashing; consequential benefits set aside; liberty to initiate action under law.

Principal Chief Security Commissioner Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2023 (S-DIS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, GADAG ROAD, HUBLI- 580020.

¶10

SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, BANGALORE DIVISION, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, KRANTIVEER SANGOLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560023.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. B PRAMOD, ADV.)

¶13

Digitally signed AND: by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI SRI. T. C. RAGHVENDRA Location: HIGH S/O. CHIKKIRE GOWDA, COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, (UNDER DISMISSAL) R/AT NO.492B, RAILWAY QUARTERS, MG COLONY, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 023.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SHIVAJI H. MANE, ADV.)

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

¶17

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023

¶18

DATED 28.03.2023 PASSED IN THE W.P.NO.7179/2022 (S-DIS) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/ DEEMED JUST AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶21

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶24

This writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the

¶25

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.7179/2022 by which, respondent’s prayer to quash the impugned order of dismissal dated 09.03.2022, dispensing enquiry is set aside, granting reinstatement with consequential benefits.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Sri.B.Pramod for

¶27

appellants and learned counsel Sri.Shivaji H. Mane for respondent. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

¶28

The respondent was before the learned Single

¶29

Judge of this Court questioning the order of dismissal

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023

¶31

dated 09.03.2022, dispensing the enquiry under Rule 153, in exercise of power under Rule 161(ii) of the Railway Police Force Rules, 1987 (for short, ‘1987 Rules’). Along with the respondent herein, Co-AGO was also alleged to have committed misconduct in the same incident, who was before this Court in W.P.No.7927/2022 and this Court by order dated 31.01.2023 allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of dismissal as no reasons are recorded for dispensing enquiry as required under Rule 161(ii) of 1987 Rules, with liberty to take action in accordance with law. Further holding that, the DGO would be entitled for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, with liberty to initiate enquiry as contemplated under the 1987 Rules. The said order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed under judgment dated 25.11.2024 in W.A.No.571/2023.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for both the appellants and respondent herein have raised similar contentions as raised in W.A.No.571/2023.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023

¶34

In addition, learned counsel for the appellants

¶35

contended that the respondent on filing the writ petition, simultaneously filed appeal in terms of 1987 Rules and contends that respondent could not have pursued two parallel remedies.

¶36

In the normal circumstances, a person cannot pursue parallel remedies, but in the instant case, since action of the appellants who were respondents before the learned Single Judge is in total violation of principles of natural justice, we would not find fault with appellants in approaching this Court. In that, they failed to record any reasons for dispensing the enquiry in terms of Rule 161(ii) of 1987 Rules. There is no merit in the said contention.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that learned Single Judge committed grave error in not granting liberty to take action in accordance with law and in granting consequential benefits. Learned counsel Sri.B.Pramod for appellants would submit that the question of entitlement for consequential benefits would

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023

¶40

depend on the outcome of the enquiry that would be conducted against the respondent.

¶41

There is some force in this contention

¶42

canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶43

Learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that dispensing of enquiry must be supported by reasons for dispensing the enquiry and enquiry would be necessary for imposing major punishment. When such conclusion is arrived at, learned Single Judge ought to have granted liberty to conduct enquiry in accordance with law and when such liberty is granted, entitlement of consequential benefits would depend on the outcome of the enquiry that would be conducted.

¶44

In the above circumstances and in the light of the judgment dated 25.11.2024 in W.A.No.571/2023 (Inspector General-cum-Prl. Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force and Another VS. SRI.Umesh Dhakar) , we pass the following:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶49

ii) Learned Single Judge’s order under appeal dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.7179/2022 insofar as setting aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 09.03.2022 (Annexure-A) is confirmed and portion of the order granting consequential benefits accrued is set aside.

¶50

iii) Appellants are at liberty to take action against the respondent in accordance with law.

¶51

iv) If the appellants intend to initiate action against respondent, it is open for the appellants to continue the respondent under suspension.

¶52

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶54

Principal Chief Security Commissioner v. Sri. T. C. Raghvendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Chief Security Commissioner v. Sri. T. C. Raghvendra

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 Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs C Lakshmisha

Sri. M. v. Srinivasa Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mohammed Wazir Baig Vs State of Karnataka

Palla Nayaka Vs Deputy Commissioner