Allowed

Smt Sapna Pramod v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024WP/8403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of Commission proceedings pending against her arising from a colleague's complaint. Relying on Apex Court rulings that Article 338 commissions lack adjudicatory powers over caste disputes or service matters, the High Court held the Commission could not examine the penalty order and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings KA/AJ/AB/Commission/violence/CR-238/2018-19 pending before respondent No.1 quashed; complaint filed by respondent No.2 rejected.

Smt Sapna Pramod Vs the Secretary — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32279 WP No. 8403 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8403 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT SAPNA PRAMOD W/O PRAMOD KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO C003, SKYLINE SOLSTICE, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, BENALURU 560043, WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER (PA AND F), KARNATAKA CIRCLE, GPO BUILDING, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. KUMAR M N., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE SECRETARY THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION, NO 14/3, ARVINDA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

¶12

SRI GOWRISHANKARA S/O GANESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO 241, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS ROAD, BEHIND NGEF KRISHANAIAHNA PALYA, BENGALURU 560038 WORKING AS SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, IN THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER (PA AND F), KARNATAKA CIRCLE, GPO BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA A C., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32279 WP No. 8403 of 2023

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN KA/AJ/AB/COMMISSION/VIOLENCE/CR-238/201819 PENDING BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-S ONLY AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against one V. Kanakadri, alleging that although he belongs to the general category, he fraudulently obtained an appointment to the post of Second Division Assistant under the Scheduled Caste category. Based on the complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, which subsequently submitted a report stating that V. Kanakadri belongs to the Scheduled Caste "Adhi Andhra." Thereafter, a memorandum was issued on 18.01.2019, stating that Respondent No.2, despite being given sufficient opportunity, failed to provide adequate evidence to establish that V. Kanakadri does not belong to the Scheduled Caste community. This was deemed misconduct, constituting a failure to maintain absolute integrity and acting in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, thus contravening Rule 3(1)(i) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Consequently, one increment was withheld for a period of 18 months without cumulative effect. The appeal filed against the order imposing this penalty was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:32279 WP No. 8403 of 2023

¶21

Given the circumstances, instead of challenging the order before the competent court of law, Respondent No.2 approached Respondent No.1, alleging victimization and mental harassment. Based on this complaint, Respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner to provide an explanation within fifteen days. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty of withholding the increment during the respondent's official duty. Taking exception to this, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for the parties has been heard.

¶23

The Apex Court in Collector vs. Ajit Jogi (2011) 10

¶24

SCC 357 ruled as follows:

¶25

"17. It is also apposite to refer to a later judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector v. Ajit Jogi reported in (2011) 10 SCC 357, which reads as follows:

¶26

“17. It is evident from Article 338 as it originally stood, that the Commission was constituted to protect and safeguard the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by ensuring: (i) antidiscrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way of reservation and empowerment, and (iii) redressal of grievances. The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338 did not extend to either issuing caste/tribe certificates or revoking or canceling a caste/tribe certificate or deciding upon the validity of the caste certificate. Having regard to sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338, the Commission could no doubt entertain and enquire into any specific complaint about the deprivation of any rights and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the Commission could enquire into such a complaint and give a report to the Central Government or the State Government, requiring

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32279 WP No. 8403 of 2023

¶28

effective implementation of the safeguards and measures for the protection and welfare and socioeconomic development of the Scheduled Tribes. This power to enquire into the ‘deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes’ did not include the power to enquire into and decide the caste/tribe status of any particular individual. In fact, as there was no effective mechanism to verify the caste/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] directed the constitution of scrutiny committees.

¶29

It is only after recording the said findings that the Commission directed the State Government to verify the genuineness of the ST certificate obtained by the first respondent and initiate action for cancellation of the certificate and also initiate criminal action. All these were unwarranted. As noticed above, the power under clause 5(b) of Article 338 (or under any of the other subclauses of clause 5 of Article 338) did not entitle the Commission to hold an inquiry regarding the caste status of any particular individual, summon documents, and record a finding that his caste certificate is bogus or false. If such a complaint was received about the deprivation of rights and safeguards, it would have to refer the matter to the State Government or the authority concerned with verification of caste/tribal status to take necessary action. It can certainly follow up the matter with the State Government or such authority dealing with the matter to ensure that the complaint is inquired into and an appropriate decision is taken. If the State Government or the authorities did not take action, the Commission could either itself or through the affected persons initiate legal action to ensure that there is proper verification of the caste certificate, but it cannot undertake the exercise itself, as has been done in this case.”

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32279 WP No. 8403 of 2023

¶31

A coordinate bench of this Court, in WP No.63405/2016, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association & Others vs. Union of India & Others (1996) 6 SCC 606 and Collector vs. Ajit Jogi (2011) 10 SCC 357 , ruled as follows:

¶32

"In terms of the powers and functions of the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution and its interpretation in the afore-extracted judgments of the Apex Court, read with the powers and functions of the State Commission under the Act, it is unmistakably clear that the impugned order, which decides the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent and gives a direction to the State Government to promote the fifth respondent with retrospective effect, correct the seniority, extend all consequential benefits, and report the action taken back to the Commission, involves powers which are ostensibly adjudicatory in nature. The Commission, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Association & Others v. Union of India & Others (1996) 6 SCC 606 and Collector v. Ajit Jogi (2011) 10 SCC 357 (supra), interpreting Article 338 of the Constitution of India, does not possess such adjudicatory powers."

¶33

Therefore, the validity of the order imposing a penalty against Respondent No.2 cannot be examined by Respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:32279 WP No. 8403 of 2023

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶38

ii) The impugned proceedings in KA/AJ/AB/Commission/ violence/CR-238/2018-19 pending on the file of the respondent No.1 is hereby quashed, and consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 stands rejected.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶41

BKM

Smt Sapna Pramod v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sapna Pramod v. the Secretary

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

Abhishek Trivedi Vs M/S. Sorting Hat Solutions Private Limited

Mr Narayana Moolya Vs Bharath Co-Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

Shri M Venkatarama Reddy, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Roopa Amit Shekhar Vs Canara Bank

Smt Prabhavathamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ananda K Vs Commissionerate of Health and Family Welfare Services