Allowed

Sri. Raviraj. S. P. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2024WP/7714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A BBMP Assistant Director on two-year deputation challenged his premature unilateral repatriation ordered on allegations of misconduct. Relying on a Division Bench decision and Clause-5 of a Government Order dated 11.11.2011, the Court quashed the repatriation order, treated it as a recommendation to the State, and let the petitioner continue at BBMP pending the State's decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned repatriation order dated 28.02.2024 set aside; treated as recommendation to State; petitioner permitted to work at BBMP until State decides, preferably within 12 weeks.

Sri. Raviraj. S. P. Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12207 WP No. 7714 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7714 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.RAVIRAJ S. P S/O SIDDAPPA P AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING) BENGALURU EAST ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE S.C. BOSE BUILDING M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.NANJA REDDY P N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP) M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:12207 WP No. 7714 of 2024

¶15

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND GRANT THE RELIEFS AND QUASH THE OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.B12(6)PR/275/23-24 DTD 28.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-3 (ANNEXURE-F) AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE DEPUTATION RULES AND TRANSFER GUIDELINES AND ALSO IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-F thereby repatriating petitioner back to the parent department, which is preceded by allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner is not properly discharging

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12207 WP No. 7714 of 2024

¶23

his duty and is not approving plans within the stipulated period and there are several complaints. The said repatriation order issued by respondent No.3 – BBMP is under challenge.

¶24

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶25

The petitioner joined services in the Karnataka

¶26

Milk Federation as Junior Engineer on 09.03.1998 and thereafter, was promoted as Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer on 06.11.2023 and was deputed to respondent No.2 – BBMP pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.1 vide Notification dated 17.10.2023. The tenure under deputation was indicated as

¶27

two years. Respondent No.3 based on some allegations has unilaterally issued a repatriation order vide impugned order dated 28.02.2024 as per Annexure-F.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

respondent.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12207 WP No. 7714 of 2024

¶31

The short point that falls for consideration is;

¶32

W hether respondent No.3 under impugned order vide Annexure-F could have unilaterally repatriated the petitioner to the parent Department?

¶33

This issue is dealt by the Division Bench in W.P.No.13753/2021. The Division Bench, while taking cognizance of Clause-5 of the Government Order dated 11.11.2011, was of the view that the Authority has no

¶34

power to unilaterally repatriate an employee to the parent department and the same is bad in law. The Clause-5 of the Government Order dated 11.11.2011 is culled out by the Division Bench at para No.5 and the same is extracted as under;

¶35

“©.©.JA.¦ UÉ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸®àlÖ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ À

¶36

»vÁ ̧ ¸ÀQÛUÉ ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ°è CxÀªÁ PÀvÀðªÀå

¶37

®ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸V ²¸ À ÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÖ°è CxÀªÁ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ À zÀÆgÀÄUÀ½zÀÝ°è CAvÀºÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀÉÃªÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀjPÉ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ »vÀzÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀ«®èªÉAzÀÄ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀ°è, CAvÀºÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgÀgÀ ¤AiÉÆÃd£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµðUÀ¼À À

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12207 WP No. 7714 of 2024

¶39

CªÀ¢ü ¥ÀÆtðªÁV®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ºÀ À CxÀªÁ ¸PÁðgÀzÀ À DzÉÃ±À/C¢ü¸ÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è À ¤AiÉÆÃd£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JµÀÉÖ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ºÀ À CªÀgÀ ¸ÀÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀÈE®ÁSÉUÉ »AwgÀÄV¸®Ä DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¸ À PÁðgÀPÉÌ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ À Äì ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.” À

¶40

On perusal of the order passed by the Division

¶41

Bench, this Court would find that the facts are similar and therefore, this Court is of the view that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in an identical case.

¶42

Prima-facie , the impugned repatriation order contravenes Clause-5 of the Government Order dated 11.11.2011. The issue raised in the captioned writ petition is considered by the Division Bench of this Court by referring to another Co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered in W.P.No.12166/2019.

¶43

In the light of the Government Order dated 11.11.2011 and in the light of the direction issued by the

¶44

Division Bench at para No.7, the impugned repatriation order passed by respondent No.3 is unsustainable.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:12207 WP No. 7714 of 2024

¶47

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds

¶48

to pass the following;

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶51

(ii) The impugned order bearing No.B12(6)PR /275 / 23-24 dated 28.02.2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-F is hereby set-aside.

¶52

(iii) However, the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-F shall be treated as a recommendation to the Government and respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to whether petitioner has to be repatriated to the parent department or not?

¶53

(iv) A direction is issued to respondent Nos.1 and 3 to permit the petitioner to work in the office of respondent No.2 till the orders are passed by respondent No.1 – State.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:12207 WP No. 7714 of 2024

¶56

(v) Respondent No.1 shall take decision as aforesaid in an expedite manner preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶57

(vi) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

NBM

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri. Raviraj. S. P. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Raviraj. S. P. v. 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 Nagaraja B B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaswamy T S Vs the State of Karnataka

R M Mariswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kruthika M.V. Vs the Commissioner

M/S. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Limited Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

Shri. Anil Ganapati Sankolli Vs the State of Karnataka