Allowed

R S Mahadevappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024WP/23204/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A head constable challenged the Tribunal's order upholding punishment of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect for unauthorized absence. The High Court held that Rule 6(2) vests charge-framing power solely in the Disciplinary Authority absent specific delegation; quashed the orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration within six months, keeping contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued quashing Tribunal order dated 18.06.2021 and punishment order; matter remitted for fresh consideration within six months; costs made easy.

R S Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4406-DB WP No. 23204 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 23204 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

R S MAHADEVAPPA, S/O LATE R S SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION HEAD CONSTABLE, R/AT RANGUPURA, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 109.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. M B NARAGUND., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MRS. SONA VAKKUND.,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 HOME (POLICE SERVICES) VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTHERN RANGE, MYSORE-570 026.

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4406-DB WP No. 23204 of 2021

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ANNEXURE - A, ORDER DATED 18.06.2021 ON APPLICATION NO. 7921/2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND B. ISSUE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SALARY ALONG WITH SALARY ARREARS WITH TIME TO TIME INCREMENTS, SENIORITY, PROMOTION AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner, a delinquent Police Constable is knocking at the doors of Writ Court essentially for assailing the order of punishment handed in a disciplinary proceeding for the 'proven' misconduct of remaining unauthorizedly absent, in disregard of the call of duty. His Application No.7921/2018 having been turned down by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, he has laid a challenge to its order dated 18.06.2021 which has upheld the penalty order of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4406-DB WP No. 23204 of 2021

¶26

Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the

¶27

Petitioner though urged several points, emphatically pressed into service the text of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965, as the main ground for the invalidation of the Tribunal's order and the order of punishment. He argues that the text of this Rule being mandatory, the power to frame Charge Memo lies only with the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, in the absence of enablement, he could not have delegated it to the Enquiry Officer and thereby, cause prejudice to the Petitioner. He presses into service a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.1360/2018 between Smt. Shashikala M. vs. State of Karnataka, disposed off on 07.06.2021.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-

¶29

State vehemently opposes the Petition making submission in justification of Tribunal's order and the reasons on which it has been structured. He contends that the grounds now urged on behalf of the Petitioner did not

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4406-DB WP No. 23204 of 2021

¶31

figure before the Tribunal; Petitioner could have taken up the same contention before the Enquiry Officer during the course of proceedings and later, before the Disciplinary Authority, as well; that having not been done, he should be treated to have waived the same. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶33

and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶34

a) The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be penalized. This has to happen in accordance with the rules that obtain in the department concerned. No employee can be proceeded against contrary to the extant rules. The competent authority should constitute the enquiry; it is the competent authority who should frame the Charge Memo; unless authorized, he cannot delegate

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4406-DB WP No. 23204 of 2021

¶36

his powers to others. The proceedings should be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, although strict rules of evidence are not applicable. These are the basic tenets of disciplinary proceedings. Mr.Nargund, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner is right in arguing that the provisions of Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules empower only the Disciplinary Authority to frame the Charge Memo, on the basis of which the departmental proceedings could have been conducted by the Enquiry Officer.

¶37

b) Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules has the following text:

¶38

"6. Procedure for imposing major penalties.-

¶39

(1) No order imposing on a Police Officer any penalty specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 shall be passed except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided.

¶40

(2) The Disciplinary Authority or any authority empowered by it in this behalf (hereinafter in this rule referred to as 'specially empowered authority') shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges, together, with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Police Officer and he shall he required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:4406-DB WP No. 23204 of 2021

¶42

Disciplinary Authority or the specially empowered authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person."

¶43

It is not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings had the thrust of major penalties and therefore, apparently Rule 6 would come into play. The language of Rule 6(2) leaves no manner of doubt that it is the Disciplinary Authority who has to frame the Charge Memo; of course, if he wants to delegate the same, he should do it by a specific order, whereupon the other authority can do it. Such a delegation is not forthcoming from the record of proceedings. Merely directing the holding of disciplinary inquiry would not satisfy this requirement.

¶44

c) The contention of learned AGA that the above ground was not taken up before the Tribunal or the authorities concerned, would not come to the rescue of respondents inasmuch as it is a pure question of law which is attracted to the facts borne out by record. It is a point that goes to root of the matter and therefore, it is not possible to assume the waiver. It hardly needs to be

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:4406-DB WP No. 23204 of 2021

¶46

stated that when law prescribes a particular procedure for

¶47

doing a particular thing, it has to be done only as prescribed and not otherwise. That apart, competence cannot be conferred by consent or waiver.

¶48

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds in part; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the Tribunal's order and the order of punishment. The matter is remitted to the competent authority for consideration afresh, within an outer limit of six months and in accordance with law.

¶49

All contentions are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Snb, cbc

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

R S Mahadevappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Mahadevappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Konani Ramappa Vs Smt. Shilpa S. Dhruv

Smt Latha @ Kusuma Vs H G Nandyappa

Sri H L Venkatsh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr M Rajarama Shetty Vs Smt Gulabi Alias Nalinakshi

Smt Bharathi Vs Sri Shivakumar a

Sri.Krishna Prasad A.R. Vs Smt. Shankari Rangarajan