Disposed

Chief Executive Officer v. Sri B v Somu

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024WP/4018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Zilla Panchayat officials challenging a Tribunal direction to open the sealed cover for promotion of a Grama Panchayat Secretary facing departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the State to pass final order on the enquiry report within six weeks, then open the sealed cover notwithstanding the indefinitely pending criminal ca

What did the court decide?

State to pass order on pending departmental enquiry within six weeks; thereafter respondents to open sealed cover and give effect to promotion decision notwithstanding pending criminal case.

Chief Executive Officer Vs Sri B v Somu — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43085-DB WP No. 4018 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 4018 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MANDYA -571401.

¶11

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, MANDYA MANDYA DISTRICT- 571401.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI B V SOMU S/O VENKATACHARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS GRAMA PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRADE-I SOONAGANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH MANDYA TALUK, AND DISTRICT -571402.

¶16

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYART RAJ VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU- 560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.AMARESH R., ADV. FOR SRI NAGARAJA S JAIN, ADV. FOR R1 SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R2)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43085-DB WP No. 4018 of 2022

¶22

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1509/2021 (ANNEXURE-C).

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶27

Petitioners, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents before the

¶28

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.1509/2021, aggrieved by order dated 22.09.2021 are before this Court, whereby the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant/respondent No.1 dated 16.10.2020 and pass appropriate order by according promotion to the applicant to the cadre of Panchayat Development Officer by opening the sealed cover, if he is otherwise eligible, in accordance with law, subject to the result of pending criminal case.

¶29

Heard learned counsel Sri.B.J.Somayaji for petitioners, learned counsel Sri.Amaresh.R., for

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43085-DB WP No. 4018 of 2022

¶31

Sri.Nagaraj S. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for respondent No.2. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners

¶33

Sri.B.J.Somayaji would submit that the Tribunal committed

¶34

an error in directing to consider representation of the respondent No.1 and to open the sealed cover to grant promotion, when the enquiry is pending in terms of charge memo dated 31.05.2017 as well as when charge sheet is filed in Criminal proceedings on 06.11.2020. Further, learned counsel would submit that as on the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 03.07.2020, charge memo in the departmental enquiry as well as charge sheet in the criminal proceedings was filed against respondent No.1 and the same are pending, as such

¶35

he would not be entitled for opening the sealed cover. It is further submitted that as on this date, the enquiry against respondent No.1 is concluded and the report of the enquiry

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43085-DB WP No. 4018 of 2022

¶37

is before the State Government to take action on the said report. Therefore, learned counsel Sri.B.J.Somayaji would submit that opening sealed cover would depend on the outcome of departmental as well as criminal proceedings.

¶38

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga would submit that the enquiry report is with the Government and the Government is in the process of passing final order in the enquiry. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would pray for passing appropriate order.

¶39

Learned counsel Sri.Amaresh.R., for Sri.Nagaraj S. Jain, learned counsel appearing for first respondent would submit that there is inordinate delay in concluding the enquiry and as such Tribunal is justified in directing opening of the sealed cover procedure followed in respect of the respondent No.1 for according promotion to the cadre of Panchayat Development Officer. Thus, he also prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43085-DB WP No. 4018 of 2022

¶41

The respondent No.1, who is working as Grama

¶42

Panchayat Secretary Grade-I is seeking promotion to the post of Panchayat Development Officer. The DPC has met on 03.07.2020, 28.12.2020 and on 21.04.2021 to consider promotion to the cadre of Panchayat Development Officer. In those DPCs, case of the respondent No.1 is said to have been considered and sealed cover procedure is said to have been followed on the ground that the departmental enquiry is pending against him and charge sheet filed against the respondent No.1 in criminal proceedings. Admittedly, charge memo dated 31.05.2017 was issued and charge sheet was filed in a criminal proceedings on 06.11.2020 against respondent No.1. As on the date of first DPC, departmental enquiry against respondent No.1 was pending and in subsequent DPCs, both the departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings were pending against respondent No.1.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that departmental enquiry is completed and

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43085-DB WP No. 4018 of 2022

¶45

the second respondent – Government is in the process of passing final order by considering the enquiry report. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the Government to take appropriate decision on the enquiry report and pass appropriate order, thereafter petitioners and respondent No.2 to take action to implement the direction issued by the Tribunal, without reference to the criminal proceedings. It is to be noted here itself that the Government has taken its own time to complete the departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings is still pending from 2017, which has prejudicially affected the respondent No.1’s service conditions. It is expected that departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings are to be concluded within a reasonable time. It is open for the Court or Tribunal to issue appropriate direction. Hence, we pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The second respondent – State Government in the facts and circumstances is directed to pass appropriate order in the pending

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:43085-DB WP No. 4018 of 2022

¶50

departmental enquiry in terms of charge memo dated 31.05.2017 against respondent No.1, within six weeks from today.

¶51

ii) Thereafter, the respondents are directed to open the sealed cover procedure followed in respect of respondent No.1 for promotion to the cadre of Panchayat Development Officer and give effect to the decision in the sealed cover, notwithstanding the pending criminal case since the same is pending indefinitely.

¶52

iii) Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶53

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶54

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶55

¶56

CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Chief Executive Officer v. Sri B v Somu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Executive Officer v. Sri B v Somu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri R C Kemparaju

Sri H D Gurumurthy Vs the Inspector General of Police

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Srinivasa N S/O Late Narasimaiah

Smt.a.Jayalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gopal a a Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

S.T. Siddaraju Vs State of Karnataka