Allowed

Sri. D. Mahendra, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2024WP/10478/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka issued a writ of mandamus directing the Additional Director General of Police to decide an appeal filed by a dismissed Assistant Fire Station Officer within three months. The court emphasized the quasi-judicial authority's duty to avoid indefinite delays that cause miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

The respondent directed to decide the appeal within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sri. D. Mahendra, Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:15866 WP No. 10478 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10478 OF 2024 (S-DIS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. D. MAHENDRA, S/O LATE KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKED AS ASST. FIRE STATION OFFICER, R/AT NO. 17, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, EGIPURA MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 562 047.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01.

¶14

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, KARNATAKA FIRE FORCE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, NO. 1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:15866 WP No. 10478 of 2024

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A WITHIN A TIME PERIOD FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents.

¶22

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking a mandamus to direct respondent No.2 herein to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 26.02.2024.

¶23

The petitioner's grievance is that the appellate authority is not showing any inclination to hear and decide the appeal in accordance with law. The petitioner's grievance is that not a single date is assigned from the date of filing the appeal. The petitioner is dismissed from service. Against the order of dismissal, an appeal is provided before the appellate authority and the petitioner

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:15866 WP No. 10478 of 2024

¶25

accordingly has approached the appellate authority by filing an appeal. If an appeal is filed, the appellate authority is under bounden duty to address the grievances ventilated by the petitioner in the appeal. Not deciding an appeal also leads to a miscarriage of justice. If appellate authority squats over an appeal without deciding for an indefinite period, an aggrieved party will be left

¶26

remediless.

¶27

Quasi-judicial authorities play a crucial role in ensuring that administrative decisions, including those related to dismissals from service, are made fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. When these authorities fail to discharge their duties effectively, particularly when assigned appellate jurisdiction, it can have significant and adverse impacts on employees facing orders of dismissal. The primary impact of quasi-judicial authorities not discharging their duties effectively is the denial of justice to the employees facing dismissal. Employees have a legitimate

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:15866 WP No. 10478 of 2024

¶29

expectation that their cases will be reviewed impartially and expeditiously on appeal. When this expectation is not met, it leads to a sense of injustice and disillusionment.

¶30

Delays in the appellate process prolong the period of uncertainty for dismissed employees, leaving them in limbo regarding their employment status and future prospects. This uncertainty can cause significant emotional and financial distress, affecting their well-being and livelihood. Failure of quasi-judicial authorities to discharge their duties can erode trust in the judicial and administrative systems. Employees may lose faith in the fairness and integrity of the appellate process, leading to decreased confidence in seeking redress for grievances and injustices. Employees facing dismissal are often in vulnerable positions, relying on the appellate process to provide a fair and equitable review of their cases. When quasi-judicial authorities do not fulfil their responsibilities, it can lead to unequal treatment, where some employees

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15866 WP No. 10478 of 2024

¶32

may be unfairly disadvantaged due to systemic

¶33

inefficiencies and delays.

¶34

The failure of quasi-judicial authorities to discharge their duties when assigned appellate jurisdiction has far-reaching implications, particularly for employees facing orders of dismissal. It not only denies them access to timely justice but also exacerbates their hardships and undermines their rights and dignity. It is imperative for quasi-judicial authorities to recognize the gravity of their responsibilities and uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and due process diligently. Effective and efficient appellate processes are essential to safeguarding the rights of employees, ensuring accountability, and maintaining the integrity of the administrative and judicial systems. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case where a mandamus lies.

¶35

For the forgoing reasons, this Court proceeds to

¶36

pass the following:

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:15866 WP No. 10478 of 2024

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶40

ii. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to examine the grounds urged in the appeal, afford opportunity to the petitioner to address his arguments in support of the grounds urged in the appeal and thereafter, proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶41

iii. All contentions are kept open.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK

Sri. D. Mahendra, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D. Mahendra, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arati Anavekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ganesh C., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Ramesh, Vs State of Karnataka

Virupaksha J Abbigeri Vs the Principal Secretary

Manjegowda, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Moshanandam, Vs State of Karnataka