Dismissed

The Principal Secretary v. H S Sunil Kumar

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024WP/11120/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Karnataka challenged a Karnataka Administrative Tribunal order reinstating an employee dismissed over alleged question paper leakage. The High Court found no evidence in the enquiry connected the respondent to the charges, held punishment requires proof on cogent material after natural justice, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; second appellant directed to comply with Tribunal's reinstatement directions within two months; pending interlocutory applications dismissed.

The Principal Secretary Vs H S Sunil Kumar — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.11120 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001.

¶8

THE DIRECTOR

¶9

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES

¶11

V V TOWERS, BANGALORE 560001.

¶12

(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE G.A. ADV.,)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

H.S. SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE H.I. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT RESIDING AT K.M. ROAD HOSUR, SAKARAYAPATNA POST KADUR TALUK

¶16

CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, ADV.,)

¶19

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶22

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.7666/2016 DATED 06.03.2019 VIDE ANENXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER OF STAY, STAYING THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.7666/2016 DATED 06.03.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants

¶26

as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the State of Karnataka, Directorate of Treasuries challenging the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.7666/2016 dated 06.03.2019 to the extent it directs the reinstatement of the respondent herein. It is submitted that the respondent, who was working as a Second Division Assistant in the Sub-Treasury at Kadur in 2012, was served with a charge memo with the imputation

¶28

of misconduct with regard to leakage of question papers and was also implicated in a criminal case and arrested by

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶30

the police. It is stated that a retired District Judge was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and a joint enquiry was conducted pursuant to which a report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent to which he submitted a reply which was also considered and an order imposing the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted on 15.10.2015. The respondent submitted an appeal in terms of Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 which was also dismissed by the Government on 10.02.2016. Annexure-'A' application was thereafter filed by the respondent before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal to which Annexure-'B' reply was submitted by the appellants herein. After considering the material on record and the contentions of the parties, Annexure-'C' order was passed by the Tribunal which is under challenge at the instance of the State and the Department.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶32

It is submitted by the learned Government counsel appearing for the appellants that the Tribunal had failed to take note of the gravity of the offences alleged against the respondent and had found that relying on the parawise remarks made in the preliminary enquiry report submitted by a person who was not available for examination in the enquiry was unjustified. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal had gone on to find that the material which had been placed on record, was not considered in the proper perspective in the enquiry.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that it is settled law that a disciplinary proceeding do not have to be conducted in the same manner as a criminal trial and that in case there was any procedural irregularity found by the Tribunal, the proper course open to the Tribunal was to have recorded the same and sent the matter back for a proper conduct of the enquiry from the stage where the enquiry stood vitiated.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶35

Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in The Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem v. S.Arichandran & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.6776/2022] in support of his contentions. It is further submitted that in a case of this nature where there was sufficient material to show that the respondent was involved in the leakage of question papers, the Tribunal was not justified in having rendered the impugned order directing reinstatement of the respondent.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that there was absolutely no direct evidence before the Enquiry Officer to show that the respondent was in any way involved in the leakage of question papers as alleged against him. It is submitted that the only material which could be brought out in the enquiry was that the respondent was in possession of the keys of the strong room. It is submitted that there was no material even to show that the leakage of question papers

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶38

had occurred at Kadur at all. It is submitted that the complaint lodged against him would show that the leakage of question papers occurred elsewhere and it was on the basis of fax message which had come from a phone number from Bengaluru, that the leakage was first detected. It was contended that out of 8 witnesses examined in the enquiry, none of them had implicated the respondent and that the finding that the respondent was involved in the leakage was made by the Enquiry Officer without any iota of evidence in the enquiry. It was further contended that all these aspects of the matter have been properly considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order and that it was on the basis of the finding that there was no material based on which the guilt of the charged officer could be found by the Enquiry Officer that the impugned order had been passed directing reinstatement. It is submitted that what was ordered was a reinstatement of

¶39

the applicant to duty within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order from the Tribunal

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶41

and the backwages stood specifically denied till such reinstatement. It is further contended that when the finding of the Enquiry Officer is found to be based on no evidence at all, the Tribunal would be well justified in quashing the order of punishment and the appellate orders passed consequent thereon and directing reinstatement of the employee.

¶42

We have considered the contentions advanced on

¶43

both sides. We notice that the charge framed against the respondent was specifically that he having been in custody of the keys to the strong room, had opened the strong room on 15.03.2012 and facilitated the leakage of question papers relating to PU examinations. We notice that Sri.K.P.Veerabhadrappa who was the co-accused, was not examined as a witness in the enquiry. Further, the Tribunal has analysed the evidence on record in the enquiry and has specifically found that the persons who were actually alleged to be involved in the offence, have

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶45

not been made witnesses or examined in the enquiry. It is found that the evidence tendered in the enquiry was woefully lacking, inasmuch as there was no evidence on record to link the respondent directly to the charges alleged against him i.e. of opening the strong room unauthorisedly and facilitating leakage of question papers from the strong room on 15.03.2012. The Tribunal has also considered the fact that though a reply was submitted to the show cause notice issued to the respondent after receipt of the enquiry report, there was no proper discussion of the facts stated therein in the order imposing penalty. Further, it is submitted that in the appeal as well inspite of examining the material placed on record and considering the entire evidence afresh, the Appellate Authority has relied on the parawise remarks furnished by the Disciplinary Authority and has come to the conclusion that there is no material in the appeal filed by the respondent.

¶46

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶47

We notice that after considering the entire enquiry file, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was no material available in the enquiry to find the respondent guilty of the charges as alleged against him. However, we also notice that after setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the 2nd respondent therein i.e. the 2nd appellant herein was directed to reinstate the respondent within a period of three months without backwages till the date of order of the Tribunal.

¶48

Having considered the contentions advanced on

¶49

either side, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact that the Tribunal has applied its mind to the entire enquiry file and has come to the conclusion that it is a case where there was no evidence on record in the enquiry for finding the respondent guilty as charged. It is trite law that a disciplinary enquiry has to be conducted complying with the principles of natural justice and it is only on charges

¶50

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:13240-DB WP No.11120 of 2020

¶51

which are found proved in an enquiry on the basis of the cogent material that an order of punishment can be imposed in disciplinary proceedings.

¶52

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ petition cannot succeed. The same fails and is accordingly dismissed . The 2nd appellant shall comply with the directions of the Administrative Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶53

Pending interlocutory applications are hereby dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

The Principal Secretary v. H S Sunil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Secretary v. H S Sunil Kumar

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

Smt a Uma Vs Smt.B.Sudha

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Shree Dharmarayaswamy and Dhrowpadamma Temple Vs the State Government of Karnataka

C Divyashree Vs D Yashavanth

Sri. Ramesh. G. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karuturi Chandrashekar Vs Marathahalli Police Station