Partly allowed

Sri G L Parameshwarappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2024WP/15505/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired head master challenged the KSAT's dismissal of his belated application against an order withholding one increment with cumulative effect imposed without enquiry. The court set aside the Tribunal order and modified the penalty to withholding one increment without cumulative effect.

What did the court decide?

KSAT order dated 12.10.2017 set aside; penalty order modified: deduction of one annual increment without cumulative effect; no costs

Sri G L Parameshwarappa Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 15505/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 15505 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. G.L. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RETIRED HEAD MASTER GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL BYTHARA HOSAHALLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT RESIDING AT PURA, NITTUR POST NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK-572 223. …PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SHRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

2 . THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATIOIN NEW PUBLIC OFFICES

¶16

W.P. No. 15505/2022

¶17

¶18

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

3 . THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA RAD, K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS-(1) BANGALORE DIVISION NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TUMKUR DISTRICT RADHAKRISHNA ROAD TUMKUR-577 508.

¶22

6 . THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER Y.T. ROAD TURUVEKERE TALUK TURUVEKERE-577 598. …RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SHRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2017 PASSED ON APPLICATION NO.4854/2013 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR, AND TO RELEASE THE INCREMENT WHICH IS WITHHELD IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2008 OF THE 5^TH RESPONDENT WITH ADMISSIBLE INTEREST VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.12.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

W.P. No. 15505/2022

ORDER

This writ petition by the unsuccessful applicant before

¶30

the KSAT¹ , is directed against the order dated 12.10.2017 in Application No.4854/2013.

¶31

Heard Shri. M.P.Srikanth, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri. Khamroz Khan, learned AGA for the State.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

¶33

referred as per their status in the Tribunal.

¶34

Briefly stated facts of the case are, while applicant was working as the Head Master in Higher Primary School, Bythara Hosahalli, Turuvekere Taluk in Tumkur, District, he was served with a Memo dated 10.04.2008 (Annexure-A1) withholding one increment with cumulative effect on the ground that the programmes were not being conducted in the community school; that the students had not written the diaries properly; that proper instructions

¶35

1 Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal

¶36

W.P. No. 15505/2022

¶37

¶38

were not given to the parents; that out of 91 pupils, only 42 were present; and that the applicant had committed dereliction of duty.

¶39

Applicant approached the KSAT belatedly. It is recorded in the impugned order that the penalty order was passed on 10.04.2008 and the applicant had approached KSAT on 17.07.2013; that no sufficient cause was forthcoming to condone the inordinate delay. In the result, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed and consequently, the application has also been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

¶40

Shri Srikanth contended that the penalty order withholding one annual increment cumulatively is a major penalty and has been passed without holding any enquiry. He submitted that applicant filed a representation to the BEO² and the same was not considered. Withholding of increment gives rise to a recurring cause of action and thus,

¶41

2 Block Education Officer

¶42

W.P. No. 15505/2022

¶43

¶44

the KSAT could not have dismissed the application on the ground of delay.

¶45

Shri Khamroz Khan, argued opposing the writ

¶46

petition.

¶47

Undisputed facts of the case are, the penalty

¶48

order has been issued on 10.04.2008 and the applicant has filed the instant application on 17.07.2013, after attaining the age of superannuation with a delay of 1571 days. The KSAT has held that applicant did not choose to take any steps to challenge the penalty order at the earliest point of time and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. It was contended by Shri. Srikanth that applicant had submitted a representation as per Annexure A3 dated 10.06.2010. Applicant was working as a School Teacher and pursuing the matter with the Departmental Officials. Owing to his status and the financial condition, he could not have antagonised the superior officers in the Department. He prayed that this Court may take a lenient view in the matter.

¶49

W.P. No. 15505/2022

¶50

¶51

9. Admittedly, applicant was working as a Teacher.

¶52

The allegation levelled against him is that he did not conduct some programme. Without holding any enquiry, a penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect has been imposed as per Annexure A1. It is trite that any order meeting a citizen with civil consequence cannot be passed without compliance of principals of natural justice. It is not in dispute that no notice was issued nor applicant heard before passing the penalty order. The KSAT has dismissed the application only on the ground of delay. The violation of principals of natural justice in this case has resulted in the applicant losing the financial benefit throughout his life. The impugned order is of the year 2008. Hence, it is not expedient to remand the matter at this point of time. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered opinion, ends of justice could be met by converting the penalty order as one without cumulative effect.

¶53

W.P. No. 15505/2022

¶54

¶55

Resultantly, this petition merits consideration.

¶56

Hence the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part . (ii) The KSAT’s order dated 12.10.2017 is set-aside.

¶59

(iii) Penalty order-Annexure A1 is modified and the penalty is converted to deduction of one annual increment without cumulative effect.

No costs.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SPS

Sri G L Parameshwarappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G L Parameshwarappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Rudrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Khandu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Adavayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Ravi Naidu Vs Smt Manjula v Krishnan

Sri Narasimhamurthy G N Vs Sri Dr Prakash G C

Achutha Ayurveda Medical College Vs the Union of India