Dismissed

Anjanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024WP/21632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A peon of a film institute challenged departmental enquiry proceedings and the charge sheet on grounds that the disciplinary authority doubled as Presenting Officer and witness, and that charges were not ratified by the Executive Committee. The High Court held the petition premature since no final order had been passed, dismissed it, and kept his contentions open.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21632 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ANJANAPPA S/O LATE H. HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS DALAYATH (PEON) ADARSHA FILM INSTITUTE, KODIHALLI, HESARGHATTA POST, BANGALORE-88 AND RESIDING AT NO.9/1, 2^ND 'A' CROSS, S.V.G. NAGARA, MOODALAPALYA, BANGALORE-72.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. RASHMI K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND KARNATAKA PUBLIC RELATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ADARSHA FILM INSTITUTE (R) KODIHALLI, HESARGHATTA POST, NEAR CHOWDAIAH MEMORIAL HALL, BANGALORE-88.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶14

SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR MANAGING DIRECTOR ADARSHA FILM INSTITUTE (R) KODIHALLI, HESARGHATTA POST, NEAR CHOWDAIAH MEMORIAL HALL, BANGALORE-88.

¶15

SRI. R.S. MANJUNATHAN ADVOCATE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, NO.242, 1^ST CROSS, JAI MARUTHI LAYOUT, B.T.S. LAYOUT ROAD ARAKERE VILLAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-76.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S.T. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶18

SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE CASE FROM THE 2^ND RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND DECLARE THAT THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS HELD AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT NO.4 FROM 29.07.2022 TO 12.10.2022 ANNEXURE-G PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 06.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B AS ILLEGAL, UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶25

(a) Issue Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or declaring that the enquiry proceedings held against the Petitioner by Respondent No.4 from 29.7.2022 to 12.10.2022 (ANNEXURE - G) pursuant to the charge sheet dated 6.12.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent (ANNEXURE - B), as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and in violation of the principle of natural justice;

¶26

(aa) Issue a Writ of certiorari, quashing the charge sheet bearing No.NIL dated 06.12.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Annexure - B, as the same is issued without jurisdiction and the authority of law as the Executive Committee has not ratified the issuance of the charge sheet as required under bye-law 9(e) of the Bye-laws, copy of which is produced as ANNEXURE - R2B, to meet the ends of justice.

¶27

The petitioner contends that he was appointed as

¶28

Peon in respondent No.2 on 10.08.1988 and his appointment was approved and recognized by the Government of Karnataka.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶31

The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice/charge sheet dated 06.12.2018 alleging that he had collected money from three students. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.12.2018 denying the charges. He contended that whatever amount that he had collected from the students was handed

¶32

over to the Manager named, Smt. Lakshmi. Later, the petitioner was placed under suspension in terms of an order dated 02.01.2020 on the ground that the explanation offered by him on 15.12.2018 was not satisfactory and that the petitioner had to be proceeded against departmentally. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.11.2020 requesting the respondent No.2 to pay subsistence allowance. As the same was not paid, the petitioner was compelled to file W.P.No.1594/2021 before this Court. This Court in terms of order dated 12.02.2021 directed the respondent No.2 to pay subsistence allowance. Since the respondent No.2 did not pay the subsistence allowance, this Court passed another order dated 22.02.2021 again directing the respondent No.1 to take action against the respondent No.2 for not paying subsistence allowance. The petitioner then filed CCC No.260/2021 against non-implementation of the interim order dated 12.02.2021.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶34

Finally, the respondent No.2 paid up a sum of Rs.3,39,640/being the subsistence allowance and cost of Rs.40,000/-. The respondent No.2 then proceeded with the enquiry against the petitioner and appointed Mr. R.S. Manjunathan as the Enquiry Officer. The respondent No.2 was nominated as the Presenting Officer. The first sitting of the enquiry was held on 29.07.2022. On 02.09.2022, the second sitting of the enquiry was held on which day, the Presenting Officer filed a list of witnesses, which also included the name of the Presenting Officer. The petitioner therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 had played the role of the disciplinary authority, Presenting Officer and witness, which is unheard of in service jurisprudence. The enquiry officer concluded the enquiry on 12.10.2022 and granted time of twenty days to the parties to file written brief.

¶35

The petitioner is therefore, before this Court

¶36

challenging the proceedings of the enquiry officer as well as the report submitted by the enquiry officer.

¶37

It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No.2 could not have acted as disciplinary authority, Presenting Officer and also as a witness. It is contended that

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶39

the respondent No.2 being the in-charge of the Institute, where the petitioner is working, is likely to pass an order of penalty based on the enquiry finding and therefore, prays that the entire proceedings be set at naught. The petitioner has also contended that after the charge sheet was issued, the same was not placed before the Executive Committee for its ratification and therefore, Articles of Charges issued against the petitioner cannot be acted upon and the proceedings have commenced on a defective Articles of Charge.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and claimed that the disciplinary authority cannot don the role of the Presenting Officer and also a witness. She contends that the Articles of Charges was also not ratified by the board, which was necessary and since proceedings has begun on the basis of the defective Articles of Charges, the same has no legs to stand and is liable to be quashed.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 contends that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry and has also cross-examined MW1, who was the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶44

Presenting Officer. He submitted that the Presenting Officer was not the disciplinary authority but was a competent witness. Even otherwise, he contends that these are all questions that could be raised before the disciplinary authority passes an appropriate order accepting the report of the enquiry officer. He therefore, submits that the writ petition is premature and no orders are warranted in this writ petition.

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶46

The contentions of the petitioner raised in this writ petition revolve around two grounds namely; (i) Presenting Officer who was the disciplinary authority was cited as a witness. In so far as this contention is concerned, there is nothing to show that the Presenting Officer had any role in framing Articles of Charges against the petitioner. There is also nothing to show that the Presenting Officer was the disciplinary authority. There is also nothing to show that the enquiry report submitted would be placed before the respondent No.2, who is

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶49

the Presenting Officer. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the Presenting Officer was also donning the cap of disciplinary authority, cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶50

In so far as contention that the Articles of Charges was not produced before the Committee for ratification, the enquiry proceedings cannot be halted on that ground since everything is still in a fluidic state. The disciplinary authority is bound to look into these issues before accepting the report of the enquiry and thereafter, take appropriate decision. In that view of the matter, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, this writ petition is premature and therefore, no indulgence is warranted at this stage.

¶51

Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed . The grounds urged by the petitioner in this petition are kept open to be considered in a petition that may be filed challenging the order that may be passed by the disciplinary authority.

¶52

Any finding recorded hereinabove is for the limited purpose of disposal of this writ petition and shall not affect any

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:38795 WP No. 21632 of 2022

¶55

contention that may be raised by the petitioner in any writ petition that may be filed.

¶56

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same

¶57

stand dismissed.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

PMR

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Anjanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anjanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Gurumalleshwara Maha Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs Sri M. Suresh

Sathwick. S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gowtham H R Vs Commissioner

Devakumar. H. R. Vs State of Karnataka

M C Sunanda Vs the State of Karnatkaa

C Dhanaraju Vs High Court of Karnataka