Dismissed

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/19214/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected a writ petition filed by the Lokayukta challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order that voided a second penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on a private respondent. The Court held the writ petition lacked merit and disposed of it.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected on locus standi and merits; costs made easy in favour of the respondent.

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46414-DB WP No. 19214 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 19214 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,

¶17

M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, 5^TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶19

SRI. M V VENKATACHALA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATARANGAIAH,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46414-DB WP No. 19214 of 2023

¶21

WORKING FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, O/O TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU, PRESENTLY WORKING AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, BENGALURU WEST, (NOW UNDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT FROM SERVICE) AND R/AT NO.492, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, H.P.S. LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 091.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. D S DODDAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN A. No. 3044/2020 AND B. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A. No. 3044/2020 (ANNEXURE-B) AND C. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46414-DB WP No. 19214 of 2023

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶30

This petition by the Lokayukta filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to lay a challenge to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 12.01.2022 whereby, private respondent’s Application No.3044/2020, having been favoured, the penalty order of withholding 40% pension came to be voided.

¶31

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the Tribunal could not have given any relief to the civil servant inasmuch as the penalty order was made consistent with the recommendation of KPSC; that Rule 214(1)(a) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, empowers the government to make order of the kind; this aspect of the matter having not been duly considered by the Tribunal, there is error apparent on the face of record. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the Writ Petition.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46414-DB WP No. 19214 of 2023

¶33

Learned HCGP appearing for the State makes submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal. Learned private counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent contended in justification of the order of the Tribunal.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as in a properly constituted disciplinary proceedings, the private respondent was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 19.12.2019 in terms of recommendation of the petitioner itself; secondly, once the order of punishment has been issued on the basis of proven guilt, the government ordinarily does not have power to issue one more order of punishment superadding to the same, merely because the KPSC had recommended. There is nothing in the text of Rule 214(1)(a) that runs counter to this.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46414-DB WP No. 19214 of 2023

¶36

The Tribunal having considered all aspects of the matter has voided the order of second punishment in favour of the private respondent who has since retired, and is in the evening of life. The government cannot act as a despot merely because some other authority made the recommendation. It would have solicited the recommendation of KPSC before it had handed the order of compulsory retirement on 19.12.2019. Passing of successive orders of punishment runs counter to the well established canons of Service Jurisprudence. We have not been shown with any Rule or Ruling to justify the same. Once order of punishment is handed, pursuant to proven guilt in a properly constituted enquiry, the disciplinary authority becomes functus officio, subject to all just exceptions. An argument to the contrary would be violative of the principles of which the government as a model employer has to follow vide Apex Court decision in

¶37

BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA vs. STATE OF ASSAM ,

¶38

AIR 2013 SC 234.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:46414-DB WP No. 19214 of 2023

¶41

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected both on locus standi and on merits and accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy.

¶42

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶44

cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Lokayukta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundara Babu Vs the Tahsildar

Nagabhushan Reddy Vs the Tahsildar

Sri Binoj Koshy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Saroja Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Basavaraj Menashinakai, Vs the State of Karnataka