Dismissed

The Chief Executive Officer v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024WP/27417/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a penalty order was filed by the Chief Executive Officer to quash a Tribunal order and remand the matter for a clean enquiry. The Court noted that the Tribunal found defects in the enquiry report regarding evidence discussion. The Court held such defects could not be cured by fresh material produced at this stage, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the official respondents are directed to release retirement benefits due to the retired respondent within two months.

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32395-DB WP No. 27417 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 27417 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMAKURU-570 001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

M.S. BUILDINGS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS M.S. BUILDINGS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶18

SRI. C.M. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE MELAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32395-DB WP No. 27417 of 2023

¶20

RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITARY SUB DIVISION RURAL DEVELOPMENT TURUVEKERE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA CHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA 3^RD CROSS WEST, TUMAKURU-570 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SHANTHARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.598/2022 DATED 24.06.2023 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32395-DB WP No. 27417 of 2023

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶29

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 and 2 and as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to produce material before the Tribunal to establish that the enquiry had been properly conducted wherein the Tribunal had interfered with the order imposing penalty. It is therefore contended that now that the material has been made available before this Court, the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 on the other hand contends that even if the material produced before this Court along with I.A. is taken into consideration, it would make no difference since the material now produced would also not be sufficient to cure the defects in the enquiry report. It is further submitted that list of witnesses and list of documents in

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32395-DB WP No. 27417 of 2023

¶33

the enquiry are absent even in the documents now produced by the petitioner along with this writ petition. It is further contended that even if there were materials before the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry report would be liable to be struck down in view of the fact that there is absolutely no mention of the material on which the charges have been accepted as proved in the enquiry report.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would draw our attention to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) specially to sub-Rules 14, 18 and 23 of the Rules. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 against whom the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated on 26.04.2016 had retired from service on 30.09.2016 and thereafter, the order of penalty could not have been issued by the petitioner herein. It is further contended that even if all the documents now produced are taken into account, the findings of Tribunal would still stand since the enquiry report does not discuss the evidence in respect of the charges as alleged against the private respondent.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32395-DB WP No. 27417 of 2023

¶36

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the Tribunal had specifically looked into the enquiry report which was the basis for the imposition of penalty as against the private respondent. The Tribunal, after considering the enquiry report, had come to the conclusion that there was no discussion of the evidence on which the charges against the private respondent were held to be proved in the enquiry report. In the materials now produced, it is not clear as to who were the witnesses, who participated in the enquiry as against the private respondent and what were the documentary evidences made available before the Enquiry Officer. Moreover, the finding of the Tribunal being that the Enquiry Officer has not discussed the evidence available in the enquiry in respect of each of the charges and has not entered a finding as to sustainability of the charges on the basis of the material on record, the enquiry report cannot be acted upon. We are of the opinion that the said defect cannot be set right even by producing material before this Court at this belated stage.

¶37

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there would be no purpose in remanding the matter to the Tribunal since the defect in the conduct of the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:32395-DB WP No. 27417 of 2023

¶40

enquiry cannot be rectified even with the materials which are now on record. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no ground for interference with the findings of the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶41

The official respondents shall take appropriate steps to release the retirement benefits due to the respondent No.3 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶42

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶44

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

The Chief Executive Officer v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Executive Officer 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

Major Gandikote Ramanna Nagabhushana Vs M/S Erin Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Pampapathi Virupapura Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Impel Exports Vs Suvikram Plastex Private Limited

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Asha Bharath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Saroja Patil Vs the State of Karnataka