Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. K C Uthappa

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WP/1874/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court rejected a writ petition filed by State representatives challenging an Administrative Tribunal order. The Tribunal had quashed a service dismissal and substituted compulsory retirement due to procedural lapses in notice and enquiry. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands rejected; the Tribunal order dated 22.02.2019 remains unimpeded.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. K C Uthappa — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33800-DB WP No. 1874 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 1874 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M S BUILDING

¶12

BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI KODAGU-571201.

¶17

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SOMAVARAPETE KODAGU DISTRICT KODAGU-571201.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. M RAJAKUMAR, AGA)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33800-DB WP No. 1874 of 2020

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI. K C UTHAPPA S/O LATE CHICKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, ASSISTANT MASTER LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL HARE HOSUR, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI SOMAWARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶23

RESIDENT OF KOOJAGERE VILLAGE DUNDAHALLI POST, KODLLIPET HOBLI SOMAVARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI.K.C.UTHAPPA- RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶26

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU IN A.NO.9375/2014 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:33800-DB WP No. 1874 of 2020

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

The State Government i.e., Education Department, is

¶34

before this Court challenging the order dated 22.02.2019 in Application No.9375/2014 by which, the respondent’s application questioning the order of dismissal, dated 09.04.2008 is allowed substituting punishment of

¶35

compulsory retirement.

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.M.Rajakumar would submit that the respondent remained unauthorized absent for more than 400 days i.e. from 19.07.2005. It is submitted, till he was dismissed from service, he did not report to duty. Learned AGA would also submit that notice was issued to respondent and paper publication was also taken out calling upon the respondent to join the duty. As the respondent failed to report to duty, under impugned order dated 09.04.2008, the respondent was dismissed from service.

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33800-DB WP No. 1874 of 2020

¶38

The Tribunal, under impugned order has recorded

¶39

that nothing is placed on record to show that the paper publication had been issued in the Newspaper having wide circulation in the locality calling upon the respondent to report to duty. It is further held that the show-cause notice dated 21.10.2006 is said to have been issued to respondent, but no document is forthcoming for having served the said show-cause notice to the respondent. Hence, the Tribunal under impugned order held that, without conducting any enquiry in terms of Rule 108 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules and Rule 8(viii) of KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957, the respondent was dismissed from service. Hence, the Tribunal quashed the order of dismissal and substituted punishment of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 08.04.2008. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that without holding any enquiry and without recording evidence, punishment of dismissal could not have been imposed. Having noticed that no enquiry is held, the Tribunal thought it fit to substitute punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, taking note of

¶40