Allowed

Sri. Ravi S Suran, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024WP/10036/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Superintending Engineer challenged a penalty imposed after a Lokayukta-initiated enquiry conducted by an allegedly incompetent authority without his appointing authority's involvement. The High Court held that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction under Rule 15 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, set aside the Tribunal's order and the penalty, permitting fresh action by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order in Application No.4332/2023 dated 06.03.2024 and penalty order dated 19.05.2023 under Rule 8(iii) set aside; liberty to competent authority to initiate action per law.

Sri. Ravi S Suran, Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 10036 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAVI S. SURAN S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (PARENT DEPARTMENT IS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT2^ND RESPONDENT) K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU RESIDING AT FLAT NO.103 SHAAKYA ENCLAVE, BEHIND KFC CHANDRA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 072

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (ACS) DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ

M.S. BUILDING

BENGALURU-560 001

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (ACS) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (PWD) VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶19

3 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.4332/2023 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-A) (b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.4332/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No.4332/2023 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 07.08.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

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

CAV JUDGMENT

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

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned

¶30

order dated 06.03.2024 in Application No.4332/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short).

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing

¶32

for the petitioner that the petitioner had been proceeded against disciplinary enquiry and the punishment of bar of one increment with cumulative effect had been imposed on him. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) on 01.06.1992 on daily wage basis and regularized in service on 02.06.2002. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 2009 and as Executive Engineer in the year 2016 and thereafter, Superintending Engineer in the year 2023. It is submitted that on a complaint being submitted by one Sri. H. Venkatesh, alleging misappropriation of funds, the Karnataka Lokayukta had conducted a preliminary investigation and had

¶33

¶34

¶35

submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, before the third respondent. The first respondent, who was not the petitioner's appointing authority, had accepted the report and directed conduct of enquiry by Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "KCS (CC&A) Rules" for short).

¶36

It is submitted that pursuant to the enquiry, the second show cause notice was also issued by the first respondent, without any consultation or concurrence of the petitioner's appointing authority, which is the Government. It is submitted that the petitioner had challenged the order before the Tribunal but the challenge had been repelled on the ground that the enquiry had been properly conducted as against the petitioner. It is submitted that the specific requirement of Rule 15 and the first proviso therein had not been considered by the Tribunal while rendering its order.

¶37

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that initiation of the disciplinary

¶38

proceedings against the petitioner as well as the order

¶39

¶40

¶41

imposing penalty on the petitioner were bad in law in view of the fact that such action was taken by an incompetent authority. On these grounds, the order of the Tribunal is challenged.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶43

has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

¶44

Rattan Lal Sharma v . Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram(Co-Education) Higher Secondary School and others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 10;

¶45

Sarup Singh and another v. Union of India and another reported in (2011) 11 SCC 198;

¶46

Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and others v . Director, Health Services, Haryana and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136; and

¶47

Sri B Neelakant v . Managing Director, Dharwad, Haveri, Gadag and Uttara Kannada Districts Co-op Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., Dharwad and others reported in ILR 2019 KAR 4857.

¶48

In support of his contention that the pure question of law can be agitated at any stage of the proceedings.

¶49

¶50

¶51

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶52

appearing for the official respondents submits that the ground of incompetence of the first respondent was not taken up by the petitioner before the Tribunal. It is contended that this Court is only considering the sustainability of an order passed by the Tribunal and cannot travel beyond the pleadings of the parties which are taken up before the Tribunal. It is contended that in view of the fact that no pleading with regard to competence of the concerned authority had been taken up before the Tribunal by the writ petitioner. Hence, there is no error in exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

¶53

The learned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on the following judgments:-

¶54

State of U.P v . Nawab Hussain reported in (1997) 2 SCC 806; and

¶55

Surya Dev Rai v . Ram Chander Rai and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675.

¶56

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent also contends that this Court would not be

¶57

¶58

¶59

justified in going into contentions which are never raised before the Tribunal.

¶60

Having considered the contentions advanced, we

¶61

notice that what is being exercised by this Court is the power of judicial review and not strictly the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions that a pure question of law, which is not raised in the original proceedings, cannot be considered by this Court. It is apposite to notice that apart from contending that the question of law had not been raised before the Tribunal, the respondents do not have a defence on merits as to the competence of the first respondent to direct initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner or to impose the penalty under Rule 11 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules.

¶62

In the above view of the matter, we would like to place a reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v . Union of India and Others , reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261. We, therefore are

¶63

¶64

¶65

of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to succeed on the simple question of jurisdiction of the first respondent in the light of the specific provisions of Rule 15 of KCS (CC&A) Rules.

¶66

11. Accordingly, we pass the following:-

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶69

(ii) The order of the Tribunal in Application No.4332/2023 dated 06.03.2024 shall stand set-aside.

¶70

(iii) The Government Order No.Gra AaPa76 Enq 2021 dated 19.05.2023 passed by the first respondent imposing penalty under Rule 8(iii) of KCS (CC&A) Rules, which is impugned before the Tribunal, shall stand set-aside.

¶71