Allowed

Smt. P. Jayarathnammanni v. the Commissioner of Health & Family Welfare

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024WP/1770/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Group-D health department employee dismissed eight days before superannuation over alleged fabricated documents challenged her dismissal. The High Court held the enquiry violated Rule 11 CCA Rules since no witnesses were examined or cross-examined, quashed the dismissal and directed settlement of pension benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside; dismissal dated 22.06.2005 quashed; respondents 1 and 2 directed to settle pension and pensionary benefits within three months.

Smt. P. Jayarathnammanni Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2019 (S-KAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. P. JAYARATHNAMMANNI D/O SHRI DODDARAJ URS AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS GROUP-D EMPLOYEE (UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL), OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE M M KOTE, GUBBI TALUK-572216 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 009.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ANANDRAO CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 009.

¶15

THE DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶18

THE MEDICAL OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE M M KOTE, GUBBI TALUK-572216 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.07.2017 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.6140/2005 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶27

The petitioner, a Group-D employee, dismissed eight

¶28

days before her superannuation is before this Court, questioning the order dated 18.07.2017 in Application No.6140/2005 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”), by which, her application challenging the order of dismissal dated 22.06.2005 (Annexure-A10) is rejected.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that, the

¶31

petitioner was appointed as Group-D employee in the 4^th respondent Office in the Department of Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services on 18.01.1975. After 28 years of her service, a complaint came to be filed against the petitioner, complaining that the petitioner submitted fabricated documents to secure employment under complaint dated 13.12.1999. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered in Crime No.171/1999, which was subsequently registered as C.C.No.778/2000. After a detailed trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges leveled against her under Sections 468, 420 and 471 of IPC by judgment dated 01.01.2008 in C.C.No.778/2000. In the meanwhile, Article of Charges was issued to the petitioner on 27.02.2002. Thereafter, not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 15.07.2002 to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶33

report on 13.01.2004. The second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.01.2005. The petitioner is said to have submitted her explanation on 24.01.2005. Thereafter, the second respondent-Director passed order of dismissal on 22.06.2005. The petitioner was due to retire on 30.06.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. Subsequent to her dismissal, the second respondent passed one more order dated 08.07.2005 directing recovery of salary paid to the petitioner, taking the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.06.1944. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.6140/2005. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 18.07.2017 partly allowed the application, confirming imposition of penalty of dismissal, however, insofar as it relates to recovery of pay and allowances drawn after 01.07.2002 was quashed. The petitioner, aggrieved by portion of Tribunal’s order confirming the order of dismissal is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶35

Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers including the original records made available by the learned AGA, during the course of hearing.

¶36

Learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar would submit

¶37

that the order of dismissal is the result of flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. In that, he submits that no opportunity whatsoever was provided to the petitioner to cross-examine any of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. He submits that the charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner had produced fabricated documents to secure employment. Further he submits that in sum and substance, allegation made against the petitioner was that the petitioner at the time of joining services had submitted false date of birth. On the same

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶39

set of facts, a criminal case was registered in C.C.No.778/2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 420 and 471 of IPC. It is submitted that under judgment dated 01.01.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gubbi, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to the enquiry report placed on record at Annexure-A8 and submits that the enquiry proceedings commenced on 05.12.2002 and prior to that in the criminal case, the Investigation Officer had recorded statements of certain persons and the said statements were made use in the enquiry, without providing opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the persons whose statements are relied upon in the enquiry. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Enquiry Officer without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 (for short “ CCA Rules ”) held that

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶42

the charges against the petitioner are proved. Learned counsel would further submit that since the petitioner is acquitted of the charges, the petitioner would be entitled for exoneration in the departmental enquiry as both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and evidence. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶43

Per contra, learned AGA would support the order passed by the Tribunal and also submitted that the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity to defend herself in the enquiry. Further, learned AGA would submit that in a departmental enquiry, strict rules of evidence is not applicable and it would be sufficient that if the documents are marked in the enquiry. Further, charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner has obtained employment by submitting false date of birth. To prove the said charge, only the documents would be sufficient and there is no need to examine any witness. Thus, learned AGA would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶47

and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is,

¶48

“ In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the enquiry held is in accordance with law and whether the order of the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissing the petitioner requires interference?”

¶49

Answer to the above point would be in the

¶50

affirmative for the following reasons:

¶51

The petitioner joined service as Group-D official on 18.01.1975 in the 4^th respondent/Department of Health and Family Welfare Services. Admittedly, a complaint came to be filed after 28 years of service on 13.12.1999 alleging that the petitioner obtained employment by submitting fabricated documents and by submitting false date of birth. On the same complaint, Departmental Enquiry as well as criminal proceedings are initiated and in terms of judgment dated 01.01.2008 in C.C.No.778/2000,

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶53

the petitioner was acquitted of the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 471 of IPC.

¶54

On the same allegation, a departmental enquiry was initiated by issuing Article of Charges dated 27.02.2002. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, Enquiry Officer was appointed on 15.07.2002. The Enquiry Officer is required to conduct enquiry in terms of Rule 11 of CCA Rules. Rule 11(14) requires production of oral and documentary evidence, by which, Article of Charges are proposed to be proved. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of Disciplinary Authority and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the government servant. In the instant case, no witness was examined during the course of enquiry. But, statements of persons recorded during investigation in Criminal case on 13.12.1999, 15.06.2000, 03.07.2000, 14.09.2000 and 03.07.2000 were made use by the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that the charges are proved against the petitioner. The enquiry report

¶55

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶56

indicates that the enquiry proceedings commenced on 05.12.2002 and it was concluded on 28.09.2004. During the course of enquiry, admittedly, no witnesses were examined and the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. Rule 11(14) requires examination of witnesses and marking of documents. If the documents are not marked through witnesses, the Enquiry Officer could not have taken note of those documents. The procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer is unknown to law and contrary to Rule 11 of CCA Rules. The procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer and enquiry report submitted is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice.

¶57

Though enquiry was initiated in the year 2002 and enquiry report was submitted on 13.01.2004, the Disciplinary Authority took more than one year to pass final order of dismissal i.e., on 22.06.2005. Eight days prior to the date of superannuation of the petitioner, the

¶58

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶59

impugned order of dismissal was passed. The action of the respondents is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. When the enquiry itself is in violation of principles of natural justice, we need not go into other contention raised by the petitioner, i.e., petitioner is acquitted of the charges in criminal case, no enquiry would be maintainable against the petitioner on the same set of acts and evidence.

¶60

The Tribunal failed to examine as to whether the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is in conformity with the principles of natural justice and it proceeded on the premise that no strict rules of evidence is applicable to the departmental enquiry. Learned AGA also contended that no strict rules of evidence is applicable to the departmental enquiry as such, he defended the action of the State Government.

¶61

Rule 11(14) of CCA Rules requires the disciplinary authority to prove the charges by producing the oral and documentary evidence. It is true that strict

¶62

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶63

rules of evidence is not applicable as applicable to the criminal proceedings. But the charges in a departmental proceedings are to be proved by Disciplinary Authority based on the evidence and cogent material. Only on the ground that strict rules of evidence is not applicable, the disciplinary authority cannot give a go by to the procedure

¶64

prescribed under Rule 11 of CCA Rules.

¶65

For the above stated reasons, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶68

ii) The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 18.07.2017 in Application No.6140/2005 insofar as dismissing the application, challenging the order of dismissal is set aside. The impugned order passed by the second respondent bearing No.DPN(4):CR43:2001-02, Bangalore dated 22.06.2005 (Annexure-A10) is quashed.

¶69

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:31976-DB WP No. 1770 of 2019

¶70

iii) The first and second respondents are directed to settle all pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶71

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶73

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Smt. P. Jayarathnammanni v. the Commissioner of Health & Family Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P. Jayarathnammanni v. the Commissioner of Health & Family Welfare

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 Manohar Vs State of Karnataka

Avinash S Vs Karnataka Public Service Commission

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri S Devaraj

Sri M Mahadeva Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Ajjegowda Vs the State of Karantaka

Nagesh C Vs the State of Karnataka