Partly allowed

Sri. Mahesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024WP/23439/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition partly, modifying the punishment from compulsory retirement to withholding of three annual increments. It quashed the Tribunal's order and directed reinstatement, finding the original penalty disproportionate to the inadvertent misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Punishment of compulsory retirement modified to withholding of three annual increments; Writ of Certiorari issued to quash Tribunal order; Petitioner reinstated without backwages.

Sri. Mahesh Kumar Vs Inspector General of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^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. 23439 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. MAHESH KUMAR, S/O LATE BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE 584 213. RESIDING AT NO. 13-6-320/2 RAMANAGAR, YERAMARUS, RAICHUR - 584 134. …PETITIONER

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS 8^TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.S R KHAMROZ KHAN.,AGA)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.08.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 2004/2024 (ANNEXUREA) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR BEFORE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No. 2004/2024 (ANNEXURE-B) TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶22

and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Petitioner, a delinquent civil servant then working in

¶26

the cadre of Second Division Assistant is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 14.08.2024 whereby his Application No.2004/2024 challenging the punishment order of compulsory retirement has been negatived.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently

¶28

argues that even if his client is held to have committed the alleged misconduct of temporarily misappropriating a sum

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶30

of Rs.5,54,225/-, the duration of such misappropriation is

¶31

only two days and that on the third day, has on his own, remitted the amount back; the said two intervening days were Saturday & Sunday and that the act of crediting the said amount to his Bank Account was by sheer inadvertence; the punishment awarded is too harsh to say the least and that a Welfare State like ours is not justified in hitting the Petitioner with a sledge hammer for the alleged misconduct. He also points out that because of the joint enquiry that involved the Petitioner and his higher officer, the competent authority was the State Government and therefore, the punishment order handed by other authority is incompetent. He points out that this aspect of the matter despite pleading & urgement, had not been adverted by the Tribunal. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the Petition by invalidating the Tribunal’s order, and the punishment order as well.

¶32

Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents

¶33

vehemently contends in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶35

submits that in an appropriately constituted disciplinary enquiry, Petitioner himself has admitted the guilt and therefore, appropriate punishment commensurate with the gravity of the guilt having been handed to the delinquent, the same has been upheld by the Tribunal in its accumulated wisdom and therefore, Writ Court should loathe to interfere in the matter. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶36

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶37

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

¶38

4.1 The fact that Petitioner having been appointed

¶39

as SDA way back in the year 2012 has put in more than a decade of spotless service, is not in dispute. He had credited the amount in question to his account on a Friday and remitted it back to the Exchequer on the following Monday, the intervening Saturday & Sunday being holidays, is also not in dispute. What is significant is that

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶41

the petitioner did it on his own after discovering the inadvertent mistake. Thus it is not that he was found to have committed the alleged act and thereafter he has undone it after being asked to remit the amount back. This mitigating factor has not been adverted to both by the competent authority at the original level and by the Tribunal when the case was carried to it. Thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record that has occasioned injustice to the petitioner.

¶42

4.2 The vehement submission of learned AGA

¶43

appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has admitted his guilt, is true. That guilt is nothing but the inadvertent remittance of the amount to his own account instead of to the account of the State. As already mentioned above, this he did on his own and within two days, the said days being the intervening holidays. Had he intended to defraud the State by misappropriation, he would not have remitted the amount back within such a short spell of time and that too without being asked by

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶45

anyone to do it. Therefore the contention that the guilt is admitted does not come to the rescue of the respondents except to the extent that the guilt has been duly proved. Once the guilt is established in an appropriately constituted disciplinary enquiry and such a finding has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and later by the Tribunal, writ courts ordinarily do not undertake a deeper examination of the same, is also true, more particularly no lacuna having been pointed out. Admission, although stated to be not conclusive evidence vide Sec.30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it binds the one who offers it unconditionally sans any satisfactory explanation for resiling therefrom.

¶46

4.3 The above being said, we cannot be oblivious to another aspect: Ours is a Constitutionally ordained Welfare State and therefore it has to conduct itself as a model employer vide BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA vs. STATE OF ASSAM¹ . The conduct of State should be

¶47

1 AIR 2013 SC 234

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶49

pregnant with elements of fairness & justness. Added,

¶50

the punishment handed to a delinquent should be commensurate with the proven guilt. Inadvertent retention of public money for a short period cannot be said to be intentional especially when the same is returned by the employee on his own immediately on coming to know of the same. This aspect of the matter somehow has escaped the attention of competent authority and also by the Tribunal. Had it been adverted to, the punishment of compulsory retirement which is apparently disproportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt would not have been awarded as rightly argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The doctrine of proportionality is one of the important facets in the realm of disciplinary proceedings vide COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs. COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENAL CO-OPEATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES

¶51

ASSOCIATION² The hugeness of punishment shocks the conscience of court.

¶52

2 (2007) 4 SCC 669

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶54

4.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the joint enquiry against his client and the Sub-Registrar was held and therefore the competent authority to levy punishment is the Government. There is some force in this submission. However, we need not examine this aspect of the matter deeply inasmuch as the remand of the matter at this length of time would not augur well to any of the stake holders. As we have already entered a finding above that the charge is substantially proved and that the same is unimpeachable and further that the punishment of compulsory retirement is highly disproportionate, what remains to be done now is to modify the punishment. We are aware that ordinarily in a case of proven guilt, awarding of punishment is within the domain of disciplinary authority, which is the Government and not the one who has passed the order of punishment. Be that as it may. Justice of the case warrants that the punishment should be diminished to accord with the gravity of guilt. In our considered view

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:44307-DB WP No. 23439 of 2024

¶57

withholding of three annual increments with cumulative

¶58

effect would meet the ends of justice.

¶59

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is partly allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal; further the order of punishment of dismissal having been modified, petitioner is awarded the punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service without any backwages and subject to the punishment now awarded, within an outer limit of eight weeks.

¶60

It hardly needs to be mentioned that this judgment having been rendered in the peculiar fact matrix of the case, it does not have precedential elements. Costs made easy.

¶61

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶62

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶63

Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri. Mahesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mahesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration

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

Sripathi G @ G Sreepathi Vs Union of India

Mr. K. B. Ashok Rai Vs M/S. Ashok Manor Apartment

Union Of India Vs Sri. G Suresh

K S Prakash Vs the Union of India

Sri Raghu Vs Sri a P Ramesh

Sri. K.N. Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka