Allowed

Sri. H L Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2024WP/6240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PWD engineer on deputation to BDA challenged disciplinary proceedings over site allotments made before his deputation, during the pendency of a civil suit with an interim injunction. The High Court held the charges unsustainable on the record and quashed the Tribunal's order and the disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued quashing the Tribunal's order dated 14.12.2017 and the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner; costs made easy.

Sri. H L Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 6240 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. H L VENKATESH, S/O LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NORTHERN DIVISION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER KRIES, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTHNAGARA, BENGLAURU-560 052.

¶13

(BY SRI. C N NAGABHUSHANA., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶18

UPALOKAYUKTA-II REP BY ITS REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-11 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN., AGA FOR R1 & R4; SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN APPLICATION NO. 7155/2017 DATED 14/12/2017 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATE TRIBUNAL, AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B) CONSEQUENTLY, TO ISSUE SUITABLE WRIT QUASHING THE SANCTION ORDER VIDE G.O.NO.NAAAEE 557 BEMAASE 2016, BANGALORE DATED 28/02/2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 ALREADY PRODUCED AS ANENXURE-A9 ALONG WITH APPLICATION IN ANNEXURE-B AND THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES IN CASE NO UPLOK-1/DE-427/2017/ARE-11 DATED 19/08/2017 FRAMED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ALREADY PRODUCED AS ANENXURE-A10 ALONG WITH APPLICATION IN ANNEXURE-B, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ARISING HERETO AND TO DROP ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner, a civil servant belonging to PWD is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for challenging the Tribunal’s order dated 14.12.2017 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A whereby his Application No.7155/2017 laying a challenge to the Disciplinary proceedings instituted pursuant to Entrustment Order made by the State under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 having been negatived.

¶28

Learned counsel Prof. C M Nagabhushana,

¶29

appearing on behalf of advocate for Petitioner on record vehemently argues that the Petitioner came on deputation to BDA only in the year 2015; subject site although is allotted to a citizen after he came on deputation, it was a subject matter of civil suit in O.S.No.669/2014 in which BDA happened to be the Defendant and an order of temporary injunction restraining interference was in obtainment. That being the position, which aspect Petitioner had made clear in his Reply dated 01.06.2016 to

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶31

the Upalokayuktha Office Letter bearing No. 16/2016-17,

¶32

the charges of the kind could not have been framed and disciplinary proceedings could not have been held against him. He also contends that the Tribunal having turned a Nelson’s Eye to the material borne out by the record, warrants interference of this Court, for setting the injustice at naught.

¶33

Learned AGA appearing for the State and the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Office of the Upalokayukta oppose the Writ Petition making submission in justification of the Tribunal’s order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. Learned AGA as he does usually, vehemently contends that the site in question admittedly has been allotted to the lady concerned in 2016; and it was the duty of the Petitioner to have the Allotment Committee briefed about the pendency of litigation or at least as to why he could take any measures

¶34

for removal of alleged encroachment of the site in question. That having not been done, he cannot complain

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶36

against the order of the Tribunal, much less the Disciplinary Enquiry proceedings. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Petition.

¶37

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶38

and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶39

a) Admittedly, Petitioner is not the regular employee

¶40

of the BDA, he came to BDA’s service on deputation from PWD in the year 2015; by that time, subject suit in O.S.No.669/2014 was one year old; there had been an interim order too. When there is an order of temporary injunction, officials are supposed to obey the same. It is not a charge against the Petitioner that he did not take any action for vacating the said injunctive order. Therefore, that aspect of the matter would not figure for consideration adverse to the interest of the employee concerned.

¶41

b) There is force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that there is nothing on record

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶43

to show that the earlier sites granted to the allotee concerned were at the instance of Petitioner; obviously it cannot be, because, he was then with the parent Department till 2015; all those allotments were made prior to his jumping to BDA on deputation. Therefore, that part of the charge which says that he was responsible for the allotment of disputed sites is absolutely unsustainable.

¶44

c) The vehement contention of learned AGA that authorities having the material collected through their sources have allowed the charge to be framed after entrustment of the enquiry to the Upalokayukta in terms of Rule 14A of 1957 Rules, it was open to the Petitioner to take the defence in the D.E. so that the charges could be dropped there at once, does not merit acceptance. Reasons for this are not too far to seek: Firstly, an innocent employee is entitled to be protected when apparently he is not shown to be at fault, ours being a Welfare State and employees being not the slaves of the State; this view gains support from UNION OF INIDA

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶46

vs. TULSIRAM PATEL, (1985) 3 SCC 398, wherein Apex

¶47

Court has observed as under:

¶48

“It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status that of contract. The Hall- mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties.”

¶49

This aspect of the matter however, having escaped the attention of the Respondents, there is a lacuna apparent on the face of the record.

¶50

d) If the Respondents had turned the pages of

¶51

Record in the light of Petitioner’s Reply dated 01.06.2016 a copy whereof avails at Annexure – A, the truth would have come to light. The complaint of the allottee – lady could not have been taken as the gospel truth qua the Petitioner although contents thereof may be true against those who were responsible for allotment of sites in

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶53

dispute, to her. The dispute in relation to the latest site allotted to the complainant way back in 2016 was implicated in the civil suit in O.S.No.669/2014, that is much before the Petitioner came on deputation to BDA, as already mentioned.

¶54

e) Learned counsel Prof. Nagabhushana appearing for the Petitioner is more than justified in drawing attention of the Court to Allottee’s version as reflected in

¶55

the BDA’s Note Sheet itself. The same reads as under:

¶56

“13. CzÀgÀAvÉ, ²æÃªÀÄw ±ÁAvÀPÀÄªÀiÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝ ºÉZï.©.Dgï 01£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, 02£ÉÃ ¨ÁèPï §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ 40’x60’ Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀA.257/f UÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19-04-2017 gÀAzÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ RavÀ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ F »AzÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀA.1§Ä§Ä¸ÀÄ-707 gÀ J¯ï.¹.J¸ï.J ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:25-04-2017 gÀAzÀÄ gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆ½¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:03/05/2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀA:257/f UÉ ±ÀÄzÀÝ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹, ¢£ÁAPÀ:04-05-2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶57

What the complainant has stated stands to reason & justice. She having been already allotted an appropriate site, was no longer interested in troubling the Petitioner with the pending D.E. To this, needs to be added what the

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶59

jurisdictional Superintendent of Police attached to BDA had

¶60

also said. The same at Item No.14 of Note Sheet reads as under:

¶61

“ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ £ÀqÉ¹zÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ±ÁAvÀPÀÄªÀiÁj AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ DjÃ¦¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀArPÉ-1 jAzÀ 4gÀ°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ GvÀÛgÀ «¨sÁUÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ §¸ÀªÀgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, F §UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV F «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶62

It is noteworthy that the charge in the D.E. is not of corruption, bribery or the like. There is nothing of moral turpitude involved. In a situation like this, matters should

¶63

rest at peace and employee should be allowed to work unhindered by the avoidable D.E.

¶64

f) Matters of the kind do not require much oral evidence, and fact matrix can be ascertained by just turning the pages of official record, which neither the Government nor the Officials of Upalokayukta have done diligently. Even the Tribunal has approached the matter not much in an appreciable way. It proceeded with the assumption that disputed facts were involved and

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶66

therefore, the D.E. should go on. Had it seen the BDA Note Sheet, the Injunctive Order in the Suit coupled with dates on which allotment of disputed sites was done, it would have granted relief to the Petitioner. However, that did not happen. The Tribunals exercise writ jurisdiction of first instance vide L CHANDRAKUMAR vs UNION OF

¶67

INDIA, AIR 1977 SCC 1125 . Therefore, it is not that every D.E involving disputed facts should be invariably allowed to proceed, regardless of apparent unsustainability of charges based on the material on record. Wherever relief can be granted, an aggrieved civil servant cannot be sent back empty handed, quoting some pedantic theories of law. An argument to the contrary would defeat the purpose for which the Tribunals of the kind are established. In DAVIS vs. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451 (1904) :“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, more than a century ago had said as under:

¶68

“Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories of law but doing practical justice to the deserving litigants” .

¶69

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:7029-DB WP No. 6240 of 2022

¶70

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition

¶71

succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal and further, the disciplinary proceedings pending against the Petitioner.

¶72

Costs are reluctantly made easy.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Bsv

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri. H L Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H L Venkatesh 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

Sri. T. Narayana Reddy Vs Smt. Nirmala

Sri K Thirthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Smt Sudhamani

Sri N B Suryanarayana Vs Sri N B Jayakumar

Smt Girija Shetty Vs Smt Devaki Shedthi

Sri N G Nagarajaiah Vs the State of Karnataka