Partly allowed

Sri C N Narayan v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024WP/52546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging departmental proceedings initiated against retired and serving employees based on a Lokayukta report. The court allowed quashing of articles of charges against the retired petitioner due to time-bar violation but disposed of the second petitioner's petition, leaving it to a Division Bench to examine grievances regarding the Lokayukta Report. Pending applications were also

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Articles of Charges dated 28.07.2018 for the first petitioner; second petitioner's petition disposed of with liberty to seek suitable remedies.

Sri C N Narayan Vs the State of Karnataka by Its — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27279 WP No. 52546 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 52546 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI C N NARAYAN S/O LATE CHANNAPPA R/AT: NO.5/15, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE 560 026.

¶10

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.19 14:49:52 +0530

¶11

SRI. R. BENAKESH S/O LATE RAMAPPA.H WORKING AT ASSISTANT ENGINEER KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA SUB DIVSION BBMP BANGALORE.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR BAJENTRI., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:27279 WP No. 52546 of 2018

¶18

COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-1.

¶19

UPALOKAYUKTA-I REP. BY REGISTER KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001.

¶20

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-7 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC., AGA FOR R1; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 03.05.2018 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNX-G; QUASH THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES DATED 28.07.2018 FRAMED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-H IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE WRIT PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DSIPOSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:27279 WP No. 52546 of 2018

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are aggrieved by the first respondent's Order dated 03.05.2018 [Annexure-G] and consequential articles of charges dated 28.07.2018 [Annexure-H] served on them by the fourth respondent. The first petitioner has retired from service with the second respondent as Executive Engineer with effect from 30.06.2013. The second petitioner continues to be in service with the second respondent as Assistant Engineer.

¶29

The first respondent, insofar as the first petitioner, has invoked its jurisdiction under Rules 14A and 214[2][b] of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, 'CCA Rules' ] to entrust the inquiry proceedings against him to the third respondent, and insofar as the second petitioner, the first respondent has entrusted the inquiry under Rule 14A of the CCA Rules. It is seen from the records that a complaint is

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:27279 WP No. 52546 of 2018

¶32

lodged on 28.03.2012 with the office of the Lokayukta against the Executive Engineer, Rajarajeshwarinagar Division and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Laggere Sub-Division alleging that public funds are mis-utilized in execution of certain road contracts.

¶33

The third respondent has enquired into

¶34

this complaint and filed Report dated 15.02.2018 under Section 12[3] of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 [Lokayukta Act]. It is after this Report, and to file compliance in terms of Section 12[4] of the Lokayukta Act, the first respondent has issued the impugned entrustment Order dated 03.05.2018 [Annexure-G] resulting in the petitioners being served with articles of charges dated 28.07.2018 [AnnexureH].

¶35

Sri. Vijaya Kumar Bajentri, the learned

¶36

counsel for the petitioners, submits that the first petitioner is calling in question the articles of charges on the ground, apart from the common grounds

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:27279 WP No. 52546 of 2018

¶39

urged, that it is despite the provisions of Rule 214[2][b][ii] of the CCA Rules. The learned counsel submits that even according to the complaint the allegations relate to the period prior to March 2012; that the first petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30.06.2013; that irrefutably the alleged incident relates to a period which is much prior to four years from the date of service of articles of charges, and therefore, the initiation of the departmental proceedings on such allegations is impermissible.

¶40

Sri Prince Isac, the learned Additional

¶41

Government Advocate, and Sri Venkatesh S Arbatti, are heard in the light of this canvass on behalf of the petitioners, and neither can dispute that in view of the provisions of Rule 214[2][b][ii] of the CCA Rules, the commencement of the departmental proceedings against the first petitioner with the issuance of Articles of Charges on 28.07.2018 is beyond the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:27279 WP No. 52546 of 2018

¶44

period of four years. Hence, the first petitioner must necessarily succeed on this ground.

¶45

As regards the common ground between the petitioners, Sri Vijaya Kumar Bajentri submits that the petitioners propose to contend that the competent authority could not have proceeded on the basis of the Report dated 15.02.2018 and that the competent authority has not applied its mind, and that the petition could be disposed of insofar as the second petitioner with liberty to approach the Division Bench because these grounds hinge on the petitioners' grievance with the Report under Section 12[3] of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. This Court, given the unassailable position that any grievance against the conclusion of the proceedings by either the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta must necessarily be examined by the Division Bench of this Court, is of the considered view that this request must be accepted. Hence the following:

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:27279 WP No. 52546 of 2018

¶48

ORDER

¶49

[a] The petition insofar as the first petitioner is allowed quashing the Articles of Charges dated 28.07.2018 [Annexure-H] of the fourth respondent.

¶50

[b] The petition by the second petitioner stands disposed of with liberty to avail remedies as would be available in law but subject to all just exceptions.

¶51

[c] All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶52

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶53

AN/-

Sri C N Narayan v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C N Narayan v. the State of Karnataka by Its

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

Siddartha Vs Union of India

Sri. Krishna Vs the Commissioner

Sri Chandrashekar Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manikanta. N Vs the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Sri. Puran Kumar Agarwalla Vs the Union of India