Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri B.N. Hanchinamani

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WP/6468/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order substituting dismissal with compulsory retirement for a government servant found guilty of demanding/accepting a bribe. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the employee was denied a fair opportunity to contest the quantum of punishment and noted his criminal acquittal on the same incident.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; directed State to settle pensionary benefits within four months.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri B.N. Hanchinamani — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33824-DB WP No. 6468 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 6468 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM DISTRICT BELGAUM.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI B.N. HANCHINAMANI S/O N M HANCHINAMANI, RTD. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/OF SHIVAJINAGAR, KANAPURA POST AND TALUK-562117.

¶17

THE HON’BLE LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE HON’BLE UPA-LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33824-DB WP No. 6468 of 2020

¶20

M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 R2 & R3- SERVED)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2018 IN APPLICATION NO.3526/2006 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGLAURU VIDE ANNX-A.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

The State, represented by Department of Revenue

¶30

and the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum are before this Court, questioning the order dated 13.03.2018 in Application No.3526/2006 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”), modifying the order of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement in the application filed by

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33824-DB WP No. 6468 of 2020

¶32

respondent No.1, challenging the order of dismissal dated 18.04.2006.

¶33

The Upa Lokayukta forwarded report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short “1984 Act”) on 18.03.2002 in respect of demanding illegal gratification of Rs.3,800/from by complainant Sri.Narayana M Kavalekara. Based on the said report, the State Government under order dated 18.06.2002 entrusted the enquiry to Upa Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 (for short “CCA Rules”). The enquiry officer nominated by the Upa Lokayukta issued Article of charges on 30.07.2003 (Annexure-A4). In terms of Article of Charges, the charges relate to demanding and accepting bribe amount of Rs.3,800/- from the complainant for entering the name of the complainant in respect of Sy.No.99/1, 99/6 and 69/7 totally measuring 1 acre 10 guntas of Karambala village, which was purchased by him in the auction from Khanapur Urban Co-operative Bank. The enquiry officer

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33824-DB WP No. 6468 of 2020

¶35

submitted report dated 31.07.2004 holding that the charges are proved. Based on the said enquiry report, the Upa Lokayukta in his recommendation dated 21.10.2005 recommended penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 8(viii) of CCA Rules. Second show-cause notice dated 22.11.2005 was issued and on receiving reply from respondent No.1, the State Government passed an order dated 18.04.2006 by imposing punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 8(viii) of CCA Rules. Thereafter, in Special Case No.28/1999, the Principal Sessions Court, Belgaum by judgment dated 06.03.2006 acquitted respondent No.1 in criminal proceedings on the same incident. The criminal appeal filed against the said judgment by the State Authorities also came to be dismissed. Respondent No.1 challenging the order of dismissal dated 18.04.2006 was before the Tribunal in Application No.3526/2006. The Tribunal, under impugned order substituted the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. Questioning the same, the State Authorities are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33824-DB WP No. 6468 of 2020

¶37

Heard learned AGA C.N.Mahadeshwaran for

¶38

petitioners and learned counsel Sri.Vijay Kumar for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶39

Learned AGA would submit that in the enquiry, charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification against respondent No.1 is proved and proved misconduct of accepting illegal gratification would warrant major punishment of dismissal or removal from service. He further submits that taking note of the proved charge of accepting illegal gratification, the State Authorities had rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and the Tribunal could not have substituted the same with compulsory retirement. Further, learned AGA would submit that gravity of charge invites major penalty and for the proved misconduct, the State had imposed appropriate punishment. Thus, learned AGA would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33824-DB WP No. 6468 of 2020

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Vijay Kumar would support the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal taking note of the fact that the enquiry report was not enclosed to the second show-cause notice and also that respondent No.1 was acquitted in the criminal proceedings on the same incident, the Tribunal rightly substituted the punishment. Further, learned counsel would submit that respondent No.1 has retired from service long back and that taking note of the hardship that would be caused to respondent No.1, the Tribunal has rightly substituted punishment of compulsory retirement. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, in the peculiar facts of the present case and also taking note of the fact that respondent No.1 has already retired from service long back, we are not inclined to interfere with the

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33824-DB WP No. 6468 of 2020

¶44

order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the Tribunal on scrutiny of material on record has come to a definite conclusion that respondent No.1 had no opportunity to submit his reply with regard to quantum of punishment; the recommendation of Upa Lokayukta was not furnished to respondent No.1 and that the enquiry report was also

¶45

not furnished along with second show-cause notice. Further, the Tribunal considering the judgment of acquittal of respondent No.1 in Spl.Case No.28/1999 has observed that it cannot be said that the judgment of acquittal is purely based on the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the peculiar facts and findings of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is justified in substituting the punishment of dismissal with compulsory retirement.

¶46

In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit

¶47

in the present writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:33824-DB WP No. 6468 of 2020

¶50

If the pensionary benefits of respondent No.1 are not

¶51

settled till this date, the State authorities shall settle the same, within a reasonable period i.e., within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶54

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

The State of Karnataka v. Sri B.N. Hanchinamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri B.N. Hanchinamani

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

Ideb Projects (P) Ltd., Vs M/S Unique Detective and Security

M.Ganapathy Vs K.L.Shrihari

Smt.Bhavani Shedhi Vs Mr.Sankappa Shetty

Sri N. Krishnanand Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr M Prakash Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. K C Uthappa