Dismissed

Shivappa M Gaddadavar v. M/S Karnataka Food and Civil

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/46345/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting his application to discontinue a departmental enquiry after his retirement. The Court noted that under Rule 214 of the KCSR Rules, the enquiry could continue for four years post-retirement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to take immediate steps to finalize retirement benefits if the enquiry is discontinued or abandoned by the respondent.

Shivappa M Gaddadavar Vs M/S Karnataka Food and Civil — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:30626 WP No. 46345 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 46345 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVAPPA M GADDADAVAR, AGED 60 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI MALLESHAPPA GADDADAVAR, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.665, 6^TH CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, 1^ST STAGE, H.B.R. LAYOUT, NAGAVARA, BANGALORE-560 043

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R. KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., NO.16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, BANGALORE-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶14

SRI. S.Y.KUMBAR, RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, NO.394, 18^TH MAIN, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. V.N.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:30626 WP No. 46345 of 2012

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ALLOW THE I.A. DATED 17.03.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C. VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO ABANDON THE ENQUIRY.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 31.10.2012 passed by respondent No.2 on an application filed by the petitioner to close the departmental enquiry against him.

¶24

The petitioner contends that a departmental enquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority, and an enquiry officer was appointed on 08.09.2011. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner who was suspended from service was reinstated into service during October 2011. Thereafter, he retired from service on 29.02.2012. The petitioner filed an application before the enquiry officer, to discontinued the enquiry in view of his superannuation. This application was opposed by the presenting officer. The enquiry officer, after

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30626 WP No. 46345 of 2012

¶26

considering the application filed by the petitioner as well as the contentions urged by the presenting officer, rejected the application in term of the order dated 31.10.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had retired from service by the time the enquiry was concluded and therefore, it could not be continued. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.1 had adopted the KCSR Rules and under the Rule 214 of the rules, the enquiry could be continued against the Government Servant until the expiry of four years from the date of his retirement.

¶28

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the enquiry was not concluded but was abandoned by the respondent No.1 and therefore, petitioner is entitled for all retirement benefits.

¶29

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, since the respondent No.1 has adopted the 214 Rules of KCSR Rules for its employees, the respondent No.1 was entitled to pursue the enquiry until the expiry of four

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30626 WP No. 46345 of 2012

¶31

years from the date of his retirement of an employee as provided under Rule 214 of the KCSR Rules. Therefore, the application filed by petitioner before respondent No.2 is misconceived. Even otherwise, such an application could not be filed before respondent No.2 but must have been filed before the Disciplinary Authority.

¶32

In that view of the matter, there is no error in the order dated 31.10.2012 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Consequently, no interference is warranted in the order passed by respondent No.2.

¶33

Hence, the petition is dismissed . If the enquiry against the petitioner is discontinued or abandoned by respondent No.1, it shall take immediate steps to finalize the retirement benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶34

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶35

THM

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Shivappa M Gaddadavar v. M/S Karnataka Food and Civil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivappa M Gaddadavar v. M/S Karnataka Food and Civil

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

Sri M Muralidhar Vs the Karnataka Public Services Commission

Sri. Rathnakar Naik H Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramalingaiah Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Sri. S H Gopal S/O Sri Huchappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr v a Ramachandra Vs University of Agricultural Science

Smt. K.M. Vedavathi Vs the Deputy Commandant