Allowed

Smt. C. a. Damanyanthi v. the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024WP/844/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Hostel Superintendent challenged the Tribunal's direction for a fresh departmental enquiry after the original enquiry by an incompetent authority had been set aside. As the competent authority failed to initiate enquiry within four months, the Court held proceedings beyond that period impermissible under Rule 214(2)(b) KCSR, allowed the writ petition and directed settlement of pensionary

What did the court decide?

No further proceedings against petitioner; pensionary benefits to be settled in accordance with law within three months.

Smt. C. a. Damanyanthi Vs the Principal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 844 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. C. A. DAMANYANTHI, W/O GANAPATHY RAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED HOSTILE SUPERINTENDENT OF KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, DHARMAPUR,

¶10

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105, R/AT C/O K.S. DINESH, DOOR NO. 2815, KAVERI NILAYA, OPOSITE INDIAN GAS, MANJUNATHA BADAVANE, HUNSURU TALUK, MYSORE.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI NAIK NITYANAND VENKATARAMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIEAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISIONER, DIRETORATE OF TRIBAL WELFARE, HUDSON CIRCLE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSORE.

¶20

THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATE OFFICER, TRIBAL WELFARE SCHEME, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶21

THE TALUKA SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER. HUNSUR TALUK, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶22

THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND THE DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER, DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION (CELL), MYSORE.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4 TO R6 SRI B J SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON 03.01.2023 IN APPLICATION NO.3665/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO CONDUCT FRESH DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY AND TO PROCEED ON THE FRESH ENQUIRY REPORT BY GRANTING FURTHER ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri.Naik Nityanand Venkataraman, learned

¶30

counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 6 and Sri.B.J.Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Zilla Panchayat.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner, while working as Hostel Superintendent in the Social Welfare Department, was proceeded against by the 3^rd respondent who was incompetent to initiate proceeding against her. The proceedings culminated in an order of compulsory retirement being passed against the petitioner.

¶32

The petitioner had challenged the said order in Application No.3665/2013 before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'Tribunal') by raising a contention that the initiation of the proceeding against her by the 3^rd respondent was incompetent and further contending that it was without conducting proper

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶34

disciplinary proceedings that the major penalty of

¶35

compulsory retirement was imposed against her.

¶36

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing

¶37

for the petitioner that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.07.2016 and that the Tribunal, after finding that the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding by the 3^rd respondent was itself incompetent had permitted the appropriate Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry afresh and to finalise the same.

¶38

It is submitted that four months time was granted to the Competent Authority to conduct the enquiry and complete the same from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is submitted that though the order of the Tribunal was dated 03.01.2023, no further action was taken by the Government in the Social Welfare Department and liberty granted to the competent authority has also therefore expired.

¶39

Relying on Rule 214 (2)(b) of The Karnataka Civil

¶40

Services Rules (for short 'KCSR'), learned counsel for the

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶42

petitioner submits that after having found that the enquiry initiated against her by the 3^rd respondent was incompetent, the Tribunal ought not to have directed conduct of the fresh enquiry by Competent Authority. It is submitted that by the time, the Tribunal had disposed of the application, the petitioner had retired from the service in the year 2016 and such an enquiry would be incompetent in terms of the KCSR.

¶43

Learned Government Advocate places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

¶44

of Assam and Another vs. J.N.Roy Biswas¹ and contends that a Government servant who has committed a misconduct cannot be permitted to urge technical and procedural grounds to contend that second enquiry cannot be initiated against her. It is submitted that even if the first enquiry was incompetent in view of the fact that the Tribunal had permitted conduct of second enquiry, the enquiry would be competent.

¶45

1 (1976) 1SCC 234

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent

¶48

would also submit that it was only on account of the fact that full enquiry had not been conducted by the 3^rd respondent that the punishment against the petitioner was found to be unsustainable and that the competent authority could therefore, even now, complete the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner.

¶49

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that Rule 214 (2)(b) of KCSR provides as follows:

¶50

"(2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment.-

¶51

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

¶52

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

¶53

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶55

dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service."

¶56

The Tribunal at paragraph No.7 of the order had specifically found that the enquiry proceeding initiated by issuance of Articles of charge by the 3^rd respondent against the applicant, who was serving in the Social Welfare Department, was incompetent. It was specifically held that "on the point of jurisdiction and competency also the enquiry initiated as well as penalty imposed of compulsory retirement on the applicant are not sustainable in law". It is thereafter that the Tribunal had permitted initiation of an enquiry afresh by the Social Welfare Department. The Tribunal had also specifically directed completion of the enquiry within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that thereafter, no further steps have been taken by the Social Welfare Department and that the petitioner is presently aged 68 years. The competent authority is the Social Welfare Department or the Tribal Welfare Department, which is the successor department after the bifurcation of Social Welfare

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶58

Department, chose not to initiate or complete any further proceeding against her. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is entitled to be granted all benefits as if the penalty was never initiated.

¶59

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, we are of the opinion that even if the direction of the Tribunal for conduct of fresh enquiry were to be upheld, the enquiry would have to be completed within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The official respondent in the Government not having chosen to initiate or complete enquiry within the time granted by the Tribunal, according to us, cannot now contend that they are competent to continue and complete the enquiry even thereafter i.e., beyond the time granted by the Tribunal also. In view of the specific provisions of Rule 214(2)(b) of KCSR, such a contention would not be available to the respondents. In view of the fact that the respondents have not chosen to initiate a fresh enquiry proceeding within a period granted by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that other questions need not be considered. The Writ Petitioner therefore cannot be

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:25427-DB WP No. 844 of 2024

¶61

proceeded against in terms of the directions contained in the order of the Tribunal beyond the time as provided by the Tribunal.

¶62

The Writ Petition therefore has to succeed. Hence, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) Writ Petition is allowed .

¶65

(ii) We direct that no further proceedings are liable to be initiated against the writ petitioner and that the pensionary benefits have to be settled in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, if not already settled.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

GVP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Smt. C. a. Damanyanthi v. the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. C. a. Damanyanthi v. the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka

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

Sri H M Farooq @ Mueen Farooq Vs Sri H.G. Kamaraddy

Sri. Mahesh. B. S. Vs Sri. K. Dilip Kumar

Sri N Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Ramachandran v Vs Union of India

Sri. Vijayakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramu Meka, Vs the State of Karnataka