Dismissed

Director General Police and Appellate Authority Karnataka State Reserve Police Bengaluru 560001 v. Sri Lakshmikanth C Biradar Son Chandrakantha Biradar Age 24 Years Police Constable 66 Now Discharge

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2024WP/102199/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had set aside a discharge order passed against a police constable on probation without a prior departmental enquiry. The Court held that the discharge was stigmatic and required an enquiry, finding no error in the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order of the Departmental Principal Judge (Tribunal) was left unchanged.

Director General Police and Appellate Authority… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15985-DB WP No. 102199 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 102199 OF 2023 (S-KAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, BENGALURU-01.

¶12

THE COMMADANT, INDIA RESERVE BATTALION, MUNIRABD, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583211.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶17

SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH C. BIRADAR, S/O. CHANDRAKANTHA BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE-66, NOW DISCHARGE FROM SERVICE B-BATTALION, I. R. B. MUNIRABAD, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583233.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. B. C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.11196/2021 BY ORDER DATED 25.11.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15985-DB WP No. 102199 of 2023

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

¶27

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi¹ , in Application No.11196/2021, whereby the application filed by the respondent/applicant is allowed and order dated 25.6.2021 discharging the respondent from service by petitioner No.2, is set-aside.

¶28

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent was appointed as Special Reserve Police Constable on 2.11.2020 by petitioner No.2, subject to a condition that he will be under probation for a period of 2 ½ years. On 2.1.2021, a Deserter Notice was issued to the respondent/applicant by petitioner No.2 stating that while the applicant was working in IRB Munirabad Unit, he failed to turn up at the fatigue duty at 5.30 hours on 8.12.2020 and remained absent unauthorisedly for a period exceeding 21 days. On 18.02.2021, a charge memo

¶29

1 ‘Tribunal’ for short

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15985-DB WP No. 102199 of 2023

¶31

came to be issued to the respondent/applicant under Rule 7 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965² , initiating enquiry against him. The applicant submitted his explanation on 4.3.2021 stating that he remained absent from duty on account of knee pain, was under treatment and therefore, requested to pardon him and drop the proposed punishment. However, petitioner No.2 did not accept the explanation and imposed the penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year treating the period of 60 days absence as leave without allowance. Thereafter, the respondent/applicant again remained absent from the duty, therefore, the petitioner passed the impugned order dated 25.6.2021, discharging the applicant from service, vide Annexure-A5. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, by order dated 25.11.2022 has allowed the application and set-aside the discharge order dated 25.6.2021. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the State has filed this petition.

¶32

2 ‘DP Rules, 1965’, for short

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15985-DB WP No. 102199 of 2023

¶35

3. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned counsel for the

¶36

petitioners/State has contended that the respondent was appointed as Special Reserve Police Constable, which is very disciplinary department. From the date of appointment on probation period, he is irregular to the duty and without taking any prior permission, he is absent from attending the duties. Even the Authority has given one opportunity to him for his unauthorized absence by imposing minor punishment and even then, he remained unauthorized absent from the duty. Therefore, by exercising the power under Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977³ , he is discharged from the service. The order dated 25.6.2021 does not carry any stigma on the respondent/applicant, as the order of discharge is by simplicitor. The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the order of discharge caused stigma on the respondent/applicant and therefore, allowed the application of the respondent/applicant. Thus, sought for allowing the petition.

¶37

4. Per contra, Sri. B.C. Jnanayyaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant submits that in an earlier occasion, when the applicant was absent from the duty on

¶38

3 ‘Probation Rules, 1977’ for short

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15985-DB WP No. 102199 of 2023

¶40

health ground, notice has been given, explanation has been called for and after considering his explanation, minor penalty has been imposed. In second time, when the impugned order dated 25.6.2021 has been passed, they have not given an opportunity to the respondent/applicant to submit his explanation. The reason given by the Authority for discharging the respondent from service amounts to stigma and it requires enquiry before passing the discharge order. The Tribunal after considering the impugned order at Annexure-A5 has rightly passed the order allowing the application of the respondent/applicant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers.

¶42

6. It is undisputed fact that the respondent/applicant was appointed as Special Reserve Police Constable on 2.11.2020 by petitioner No.2 under probationary period of 2 ½ years. Since the applicant/respondent was irregular to the duties, notice has been issued to him on 2.1.2021. Pursuant to the said notice, on 18.2.2021, a charge memo came to be

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15985-DB WP No. 102199 of 2023

¶44

issued under Rule 7 of the DP Rules, 1965 initiating enquiry against the respondent. The respondent has submitted his explanation on 4.3.2021, which came to be rejected and minor penalty was imposed. Even thereafter, he was irregular to the duties and therefore, the petitioner No.2 issued discharge order to the respondent dated 25.6.2021 as per Annexure-A5. On the earlier occasion, in respect of similar allegations, enquiry has been initiated under DP Rules 1965. In second time, they have invoked the provisions of Rule 6 of Probation Rules, 1977. The impugned order at Annexure-A observes that the respondent is ineligible for the post which obviously is an order that is stigmatic in nature. The impugned order of the petitioner No.2 at Annexure-A5 is not an order of simplicitor and therefore, it requires departmental enquiry. The Tribunal after considering this aspect of the matter has rightly allowed the application and set-aside the impugned order dated 25.6.2021. We find no error or illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed . It is made clear that the observation made by this Court hereinabove, will not preclude the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15985-DB WP No. 102199 of 2023

¶47

petitioners from initiating the Departmental Enquiry against the respondent/applicant in accordance with law.

¶48

Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.

¶49

Sd/(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶51