Partly allowed

Sri Siddappa M Pujari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024WP/13889/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three compulsorily retired civil servants challenged a common KSAT order upholding disciplinary punishment. The High Court held that non-consideration of their reply to the Enquiry Report breached natural justice, presumed prejudice, and that no interest was leviable for delayed proceedings. It quashed the punishment order but remanded to the disciplinary authority from the stage of the second sho

What did the court decide?

Certiorari quashed the Tribunal's common order dated 17.04.2021 and the punishment order dated 13.09.2017; matter remanded to disciplinary authority from reply to second show cause notice, within six

Sri Siddappa M Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 13889/2021 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS. 8647/2021, 12713/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶10

IN W.P.NO.13889/2021:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. SIDDAPPA M PUJARI, S/O LATE MARUTHI PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS ARCHEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHEOLOGY, MUSEUMS AND HERITAGE, EXHIBITION GROUND, MYSORE-570 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI.SATISH K .,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA CULTURE AND INFORMATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHEOLOGY, MUSEUMS AND HERITAGE, MYSORE-570 010. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA.,AGA)

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.6077/2017 (ANNEUXRE-A) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.04.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.6077/2017 (ANNEUXRE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.6077/2017 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-B) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

IN W.P.NO.8647/2021:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI. B VAGEESH, S/O LATE H BASAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS INLAND WATER AND PORTS, NO.2, SUB DIVISION, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 228. (KSAT APPLICATION NO.5701/2017)

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI.M V ASHWINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B S REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KANNADA, CULTURE AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, GROUND FLOOR, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶30

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS INLAND WATER TRANSPORT AND PORTS DEPARTMENT, III FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶32

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.RAJESH C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VENKATESH S ARABATII., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A) A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 13/09/2017 IN NO. GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO. SOKE 83 KMU 2002, BANGALORE, DATED 17/06/2006 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURE-C BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AS IT IS NECESSARY AND ETC.,

¶36

IN W.P.NO.12713/2021:

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

SRI. N D MOHAN KUMAR, S/O LATE N D RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER RESIDING AT NO.15, BLOCK 24, BEML LAYOUT, SRIRAMPRUA 2^ND STAGE, MYSORE-570 023. (NOT CLAIMING ANY SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT) (BY SRI.SATISH., ADVOCATE)

¶39

…PETITIONER

¶40

AND:

¶41

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶43

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA CULTURE AND INFORMATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶44

3 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (SOUTH) K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/04/2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.5815/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND B) SETASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/04/2021 PASSED BY THE HON BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.5815/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.5815/2017 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.,

¶48

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The delinquent civil servants who have been compulsorily retired by way of disciplinary action, have presented these petitions for laying a challenge to a common order dated 17.04.2021 whereby, the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal has negatived their Applications which had called in question the said disciplinary orders.

¶52

Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners

¶53

seek to falter the orders of punishment principally on three grounds:

¶54

(i) Their reply/representation to the Enquiry Report

¶55

have not been adverted to by the disciplinary authority while awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement and recovery of huge sums of money.

¶56

(ii) The disciplinary proceedings were very long drawn, with no culpability attributable to the petitioners who have already attained the age of superannuation, the

¶57

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶58

disciplinary authority ought not to have levied interest on the amount otherwise recoverable.

¶59

(iii) At this length of time, no purpose would be served by continuing the disciplinary enquiry after the quashment of orders of punishment and therefore, the petitioners should be notionally directed to be reinstated and be paid all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay, etc., that would otherwise have accrued till their attaining the age of superannuation.

¶60

Learned AGA appearing for the State and learned Panel Counsel representing the Lokayukta resist the Petitions making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been structured. Learned AGA contends that mere delay in accomplishing the disciplinary proceedings is no ground for their quashment; the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 leave no discretion on the disciplinary authority to waive interest on the amount of loss caused to the Exchequer; mere non-

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶63

consideration of reply to the Enquiry Report is not sufficient for granting interference in the matter unless the prejudice caused thereby is demonstrated; the disciplinary authority having considered everything, in its discretion has levied the punishment and the same having been examined, the Tribunal has negatived petitioners’ challenge thereto; this court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227, may not undertake a deeper examination of the matter. So contending, prayer for dismissal of the Petitions is pressed.

¶64

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶65

(a) Shorn off bulkness of the Paper Books, these matters lie in a narrow compass. The first contention as to non-consideration of petitioners’ reply filed against the Enquiry Report is substantiated inasmuch as there is

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶67

absolutely no discussion about the version of the petitioners as against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Supply of Enquiry Report is a must, said the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN, (1991) 1 SCC 588. The same was reiterated in MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD, vs. B.KARUNAKAR , (1993) 4 SCC 727. If furnishing of Enquiry Report is a must, it is only to have the version of the delinquent employee over the same. This is consistent with the requirement of principles of natural justice, as rightly argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶68

(b) A some what contra contention of the learned AGA that a copy of the Enquiry Report was served on the delinquent employees, is undisputed and that mere nonconsideration of the reply thereto would not justify quashment of the order of punishment, in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, is bit difficult to countenance. As already mentioned above, Enquiry Report is given so that the delinquent employee can have his say over the findings therein; otherwise, they run the risk of being held

¶69

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶70

guilty in terms of the findings that remain unassailed. That is the reason, the consideration of reply to the Report for being imperative. After all, the principles of natural justice are treated as the part of Article 14 of our Constitution. Even Rule 11A(4) of 1957 Rules prescribe the same. Where principles of natural justice are breached, prejudice needs to be presumed.

¶71

(c) The event in question happened during the period between 1992 and 1998. The Charge Memo was issued to the petitioners on 18.11.2006 and thus, by that time, eight years had lapsed. The effective enquiry commenced only on 21.06.2013, pursuant to Lokayukta recommendation dated 4.6.2013 in terms of section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The second Show Cause Notice was issued on 2.9.2013 and all the petitioners had filed their reply thereto in September & October, 2013. The impugned order of penalty came to be passed only on 13.9.2017. These indisputable facts prove that the proceedings were drawn for quite long. It is not the case of respondents that the petitioners are

¶72

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶73

responsible for all this. At least as a concession to the shortness of human life, the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been accomplished within a reasonable period, say a year or two. However, delay per se is not a ground for the quashment of such proceedings, as rightly contended by learned AGA, needs no deliberation. Whether there is delay or not, depends upon a host of factors individual to the cases. There cannot be a Thumb Rule in this regard. There is some justification for the contention of the respondents that the matter was complex and delinquents were many. Be that as it may, the long and short of the story, as it comes out does not justify quashment of the disciplinary proceedings in their entirety and thereby, absolve the petitioners from the allegations. The contra proposition would affect the probity in public employment and therefore, the same cannot be countenanced.

¶74

(d) All the above being said, no person should be put to prejudice for the fault of others, has been the grand principle of justice since centuries. The disciplinary proceedings having been belatedly commenced, came to

¶75

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶76

an end very long thereafter when the order of punishment was made on 13.09.2017. There is nothing to demonstrate culpability of the petitioners for this long delay. Therefore, counsel for the petitioners are more than justified in submitting that no interest can be levied on them for whatever amount they are liable to pay for the loss allegedly caused to the Exchequer. Holding otherwise would offend rules of reason & justice.

¶77

(e) Now the question as to what should be done in these matters, all the petitioners having already attained the age of superannuation, does crop up. The Court cannot assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority nor can it wear the hat of an employer vide STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. HEEM SINGH (2020) SCC OnLine SC 886. It is for them to consider the findings in the Enquiry Report in the light of replies filed by the petitioners thereto. Up to that stage, no error is demonstrated in the disciplinary proceedings, except contending that they are enormously delayed which fact is also undeniable, but insufficient to quash. In the fitness of things, the

¶78

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶79

disciplinary proceedings need be quashed retaining the stage of second Show Cause Notice so that petitioners reply thereto would be considered by the disciplinary authority who would finalize the subsequent proceedings within a time bound manner, already years having lapsed. We also note that some monies have already been recovered from the petitioners by way of penalty and some more remained to be recovered. Of course, now that recovery question would not arise, the penalty order itself being quashed and matter remanded for consideration afresh.

¶80

In the above circumstances, these Petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s common order dated 17.04.2021 made in Application Nos.6077/2017, 5701/2017 & 5815/2017 and also the common order of punishment dated 13.09.2017; the matter is remanded to the portals of disciplinary authority for consideration afresh from the stage of petitioners’ reply to the second

¶81

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:4986-DB WP No. 13889 of 2021 C/W WP No. 8647 of 2021 WP No. 12713 of 2021

¶82

Show Cause Notice; the remand shall be disposed off within an outer limit of six months.

¶83

If petitioners are exonerated by the order to be passed by the disciplinary authority, they shall be paid the arrears of salary for the period between 13.09.2017 till the passing of that order and further, whatever has been recovered from them shall be refunded too within three months.

¶84

However, if petitioners are found to be liable to reimburse the loss, no interest shall be payable beyond a period of one year.

Costs made easy.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

cbc

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri Siddappa M Pujari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddappa M Pujari v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri G T Narayanappa Vs Sri Chikka Venkatappa

The Pr. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Vs M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Ltd.

Mr M Rajarama Shetty Vs Smt Gulabi Alias Nalinakshi

Union of India Vs Smt.G.v.Gayathri

Dr Shankar Narayanan Vs Union of India

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Krishnappa D N