Allowed

Sri Veerabhadraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2024WP/17622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Assistant Public Prosecutor challenged the Government's cancellation of his appointment on stigmatic grounds without opportunity. The Court quashed the order, permitting resignation within eight weeks or discharge simplicitor, or termination with vindicated reasons after due opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11.06.2024 quashed; liberty to petitioner to resign within 8 weeks; State may thereafter discharge him simplicitor or terminate after due opportunity.

Sri Veerabhadraiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26616 WP No. 17622 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17622 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. SHIVRUDRAIAH, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,

¶9

CHANNAPATTANA,

¶10

RESIDING AT ANJANPURA VILLAGE AND POST, KAILANCHA HOBALI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 159.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL

¶16

CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION, GOVERNMENT LITIGATION, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE SECRETARY

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF HOME POLICE SERVICE-B,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:26616 WP No. 17622 of 2024

¶21

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶22

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATION, 6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶23

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LITIGATION-2) DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION AND GOVT. LITIGATION CAUVERY BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER BEARING OE-106/PPE2024 DATED 11/06/2024 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXUREC TO THE WP UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AND CHANNAPATTANA AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS-CUM-ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS RECRUITMENT RULES, 2002 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:26616 WP No. 17622 of 2024

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor and is attached to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattana. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Government's order dated 11.06.2024 [ Annexure-C ], and the Government by this order has cancelled the petitioner's appointment. The reasons assigned by the Government for this order read as under¹ :

¶32

"�ೕ�ೆ ಓದ�ಾದ ಕ�ಮ ಸಂ�ೆ� (3) ರ�� ೕ �ೕರಭದ�ಯ� ಎ� . ಗು� � ೆ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ!" ಅ$%ೕಜಕರು , ಅ'ಕ ()ೆ ಮತು� )ೆ . ಎಂ . ಎ+ . ( . ,ಾ�-ಾಲಯ , ಚನ1ಪಟ4ಣ ಇವರು ,ೇಮ ಾ� 8ಯಮಗ9�ೆ �ರುದ:;ಾ< ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ!" ಅ$%ೕಜಕ"�ೆ ತಕ=ದಲ�ದ "ೕ�ಯ�� ನ>ೆದು ೊಳAB��ರುವCದ"ಂದ �ಾಗೂ ಇ�ಾ�ೆ�ೆ Dಾವ!ಜ8ಕ ಮತು� ,ಾ�Eಕ FತದೃH4�ೆ �ರುದ:;ಾ< ನ>ೆದು ೊಳAB��ರುವCದು ಕಂಡುಬಂKದುL , ಅ$%ೕಜ,ೆ FತದೃHMEಂದ ಇವರನು1 ಗು� � ೆ ಆOಾರದ �ೕ�ೆ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ!" ಅ$%ೕಜಕರು - ವ - ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ!" ವPೕಲರ ,ೇಮ ಾ�ಯನು1 ರದುLಪQಸುವಂRೆ ೋ" �Sಾರ(T,ೊಂK�ೆ ಪ�Dಾ�ವ,ೆಯನು1 ಇ�ಾ�ಾ

¶33

1 The translation of the reason is that the practitioner’s appointment is cancelled because it is found that he is conducting himself in a manner that is unbecoming of his office.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:26616 WP No. 17622 of 2024

¶36

ಮುಖ�ಸVರು ಸ ಾ!ರ ೆ=ಸ��(ರುRಾ�Wೆ . ಸದ" ಪ�Dಾ�ವ,ೆಯನು1 ಸ ಾ!ರವC ಕೂಲಂಕಷ;ಾ<ಪ"�ೕ�(ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂRೆ ಆZೇ�(Zೆ."

¶37

Sri. S. B. Mukkannappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner does not dispute that it would be within the State Government's domain, given the provisions of Sub Rule [6] of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Law Officers [Appointment and Conditions of Service] Rules 1977 [for short, ' the 1977 Rules' ], to replace its Law Officers, but the petitioner's grievance is with the reasons offered for cancellation of the petitioner's appointment. The learned counsel emphasizes that the reason assigned is stigmatic and it holds the petitioner in poor light without just opportunity.

¶38

The reason for termination of the petitioner’s removal, as could be seen from the extracted portion, is that the petitioner is not conducting himself as is expected of a person holding his office. It cannot be gainsaid that the Government, in the circumstances

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:26616 WP No. 17622 of 2024

¶41

of the case, could not have relied upon the provisions of Sub Rule [6] of Rule 5 of 1977 Rules without even an opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, there must be interference by this Court with the impugned order. However, when queried Sri. S. B. Mukkannappa, submits that the petitioner will not be interested in continuing in his appointment so long as his reputation is not injured by stigmatic allegations. This position is also considered, and this Court is of the view that the petitioner must be at liberty to tender his resignation within a reasonable time with liberty to the respondents to discharge the petitioner's simplicitor, unless it proposes to vindicate the reasons. In which event, there must be necessary opportunity to the petitioner. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed, and the Government's Order dated 11.06.2024 [ Annexure-C ] is quashed with liberty to the

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26616 WP No. 17622 of 2024

¶45

petitioner to tender his resignation within a period of eight [8] weeks from today and with liberty to the State Government, after the expiry of the said period of eight [8] weeks, to discharge the petitioner's simplicitor invoking Sub Rule [6] of Rule 5 of 1977 Rules or terminate the petitioner's appointment vindicating its reasons but after due opportunity.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sri Veerabhadraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Veerabhadraiah 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

Dr Shankar B P Vs the Karnataka Veterinary

Umadevi Vs Principal Secretary

Smt L Bhagyalakshmi Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)

Mr Syed Hussain Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka State Co. Operative Vs Sri M B Parameshwar

Shankarappa M Vs the State of Karnataka