Dismissed

Sri.K. Gowtham v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2024WP/4849/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition but directed the disciplinary authority to issue a second show-cause notice to the petitioner within three weeks based on the pending inquiry report, upholding the Tribunal's view that challenging the report itself was premature.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the Tribunal's order was upheld. Directrices were issued to the disciplinary authority to issue a second show-cause notice within three weeks and consider the petiti

Sri.K. Gowtham Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 4849 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. K. GOWTHAM S/O LATE SRI. KRISHNAPPA S. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.98, 2^ND CROSS ROYSINGH LAYOUT, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-562 114

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 043

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶20

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2024 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.60/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO TO QUASH THE REPORT PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT, i.e., THE ENQUIRY OFFICER VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 DATED 22.11.2022 BEARING No.2/2019-20 AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), dismissing the application filed

¶28

by the petitioner in Application No.60 of 2023.

¶29

It is submitted that the petitioner initially

¶30

joined the respondent organisation as a First Division

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶32

Assistant on 14.06.2006 and has served at the Taluk office in Kolar until 09.11.2010, after which he served as a Revenue Inspector at Hoskote Taluk until 23.07.2011, followed by his promotion on 30.07.2012 as a Deputy Tahsildar, Hoskote Taluk. The petitioner is presently working as a Revenue Head Accountant from 2018.

¶33

Pursuant to the Government Order dated 30.06.2018 directing an investigation to be conducted regarding certain irregularities found in the confirmation of mutation in the land records, on 04.07.2011, a charge memo dated 15.04.2019 was issued to the petitioner alleging that under a land sanction order in File No.LND/SR 79/77-78 pertaining to Sy.No.5 at Thirumalashettyhalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, only 14 people were allotted land as per the official memo, but in the order of the Tahsildar, three other names were also added and mutated without proper verification of records, thus creating ownership of land in Sy.No.93 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in the name of one

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶35

Mrs. Krishnamma (wife of Mr. Nagaraju). It was stated that this action by the petitioner and 5 others amounted to dereliction of duty, and disciplinary action was proposed to be initiated for violation of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

¶36

Accordingly, an inquiry was ordered on 26.05.2019 as per Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 — appointing the Special Deputy Commissioner–I as the inquiry officer along with a Grade-II Tahsildar as the Presiding Officer — to be completed within three months. The petitioner submitted his reply and an inquiry was held, upon the conclusion of which an inquiry report was submitted on 22.11.2022.

¶37

The Tribunal has considered that a second show-cause notice has not been issued to the petitioner pursuant to the inquiry report being submitted, thus an opportunity to challenge the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner. The Tribunal, with an observation that

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶39

challenging the inquiry report at this stage would be premature, held that the petitioner’s application

¶40

challenging the same would not be maintainable and, hence, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner’s application on 02.01.2024.

¶41

Aggrieved by this order dismissing his application, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking to set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the inquiry report.

¶42

The report of inquiry was challenged before the Tribunal in the application by the petitioner. It was contended that the inquiry itself was barred by limitation

¶43

and was conducted without following due procedure. It was further contended that the material relied on had not been served on the petitioner, and that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to adduce evidence or to cross-examine the sole witness produced on behalf of the State. Further, the petitioner had also raised a contention that by the Government Order dated 30.06.2018, the

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶45

charges against the farmer Tahsildar, who was the main culprit, had been dropped.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal had relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.34976/2015 (S-DE) decided on 03.02.2017 rendered in the case of T.K. RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS., wherein, it was held that a charge-sheet can be challenged only if it is issued by an incompetent authority or where the proceedings themselves are found to be without authority of law. It is submitted that in the instant case, since the charge against the Tahsildar has been dropped by the Government, there would be no purpose in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner who had only acted on the directions of the Tahsildar.

¶47

Reliance is also placed on the decision of a coequal bench of this Court in the case of Smt. ANITA v. THE PRINCIPAL, CHIEF OF FOREST (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE), BENGALURU AND OTHERS reported in 2020 (5) KCCR 406

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶49

(DB) , to contend that the judgments and orders of the Tribunal should reflect proper application of mind.

¶50

We have considered the contentions advanced.

¶51

It is clear that the challenge before the Tribunal was against the inquiry report dated 22.11.2022 submitted by the third respondent after conducting a disciplinary inquiry. It is trite law that an inquiry report is not a proceeding against the delinquent officer. The report has

¶52

to be considered by the disciplinary authority and thereafter, the authority has the discretion either to accept the same or to differ from the findings of the inquiry on

¶53

the basis of cogent materials and for reasons to be stated.

¶54

The delinquent officer would be entitled to a show-cause notice and it is only after considering his objections to the same that any order of penalty can be passed against him.

¶55

This exercise would have to be carried out by the disciplinary authority by an independent exercise of its discretion. The Tribunal has considered these aspects relying on the judgment in T.K. Ramesh Kumar' s case

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶57

(supra), and had held that the application challenging the inquiry report is not maintainable.

¶58

Having considered the contentions advanced and in the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion

¶59

that it is only if the disciplinary authority accepts the inquiry report and passes any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner that he will have a right to challenge the same. It is trite that if an order of penalty is passed relying on the inquiry report, the petitioner will have the right to challenge the findings in the inquiry as well as any error in the procedure in the conduct of the same. We are therefore of the clear opinion that the right of the petitioner would be to point out his contentions in reply to the second show-cause notice to be issued on the basis of the inquiry report, which was under challenge before the Tribunal. We therefore decline to interfere with order of the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that any further delay in completing

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:26718-DB WP No. 4849 of 2024

¶62

the disciplinary proceedings will result in irreparable hardship and injury to the petitioner.

¶63

Considering the said contentions, we dispose of

¶64

the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶65

(i) The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶66

(ii) The order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.60 of 2023, is upheld.

¶67

(iii) However, the disciplinary authority is directed to issue a second show-cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of the inquiry report which is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶68

(iv) The petitioner shall submit his objections thereto, pointing out all the aspects raised by him in this writ petition including on the ground of Annexure-A2, by which the proceedings against the superior officer has been dropped by the Government.

¶69