Partly allowed

Sri Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2024WP/9412/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the penalty order of withholding an increment due to violation of natural justice. Respondents are directed to issue a second show-cause notice with the enquiry report, obtain a reply, and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.09.2020 quashed; respondents directed to issue second show-cause notice with enquiry report, obtain reply, and pass appropriate order within three months.

Sri Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43395-DB WP No. 9412 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9412 OF 2021 (GM-KLA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. NANJAPPA S/O LATE HUTCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR WARD NO.77, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT

¶11

REVENUE OFFICER GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION GOOD SHED ROAD BANGALORE-560 009

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

¶17

THE UNDER SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT(BBMP) M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:43395-DB WP No. 9412 of 2021

¶21

M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

¶22

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-10 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

¶23

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560 002 [AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER]

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORRI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE AND QUASH THE ORDER NO. NA.A.E.12 MNG 2017 DATED 07/09/2020 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE - G TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE AND QUASH THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 22/07/2019 BEARING NO.UPLOK-1/DE/390/2017/ARE-10 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43395-DB WP No. 9412 of 2021

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

The petitioner being Revenue Inspector in 5^th respondent Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (for short 'BBMP') is before this Court aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect under Order dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure-G).

¶34

Heard learned counsel Sri V. Srinivas, for the petitioner, learned AGA Sri Bhojegowda T.Koller, for R1 and 3, learned counsel Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for Respondent No.3, learned counsel Sri B.S.Karthikeyan, for BBMP and perused the petition papers.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

after enquiry, first respondent-Government in terms of order dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure-G) imposed punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner was

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43395-DB WP No. 9412 of 2021

¶38

not served with the second show-cause notice along with the enquiry report so as to submit his comments on the enquiry report. Learned counsel would submit that the non-furnishing of second enquiry report would be violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel would submit that the co-DGO had approached KSAT at Bengaluru in Application No.1868/2021 challenging the same Government Order wherein he was imposed with punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The Tribunal by its order dated 09.01.2023 set aside the order of punishment solely on the ground that second show-cause notice along with the report is not served on Sri Dharmaraj G.Naik and the Tribunal directed the respondents to furnish the enquiry report, obtain representation if any, and pass orders thereon. Learned counsel prays for similar order. Further the learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal, on summoning the records and on examination of the record, satisfied that the second show-cause notice along with enquiry report was not furnished. Learned counsel places

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43395-DB WP No. 9412 of 2021

¶40

reliance on the said finding and prays to allow the writ petition.

¶41

Learned AGA Sri Bhojegowda T.Koller per

¶42

contra supporting the order passed by the Tribunal refers the impugned order of penalty and submits that second show-cause notice was issued and was asked to be served through the 5^th respondent. Thus, he refutes the allegation of the petitioner of non-issue of second show-cause notice along with enquiry report.

¶43

Learned counsel Sri Venkatesh Arabatti

¶44

appearing for R2 also supports the submission of the learned AGA and submits that allegation of the petitioner that second show-cause notice along with the enquiry

¶45

report is not served is false. Further submits that in fact, when the show-cause notice along with enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to submit his representation. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43395-DB WP No. 9412 of 2021

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶48

parties and having perused the writ petition papers, the only point that falls for consideration is whether the impugned order of penalty requires interference at the hands of this Court?. The answer would be in the affirmative for the following reasons:

¶49

After enquiry, under Annexure-G dated

¶50

07.09.2020, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for proved misconduct. The only contention urged by the petitioner is that, second show-cause notice along with enquiry report was not served on him. The order of penalty is passed against four persons including the petitioner . The other person i.e. Dharmaraj G. Naik, Assistant Engineer had approached the KSAT at Bengaluru in Application No.1868/2021 challenging the very same impugned order of penalty dated 7.9.2020. The Tribunal, on examination of entire material on record and the order of penalty has come to a definite conclusion that the

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43395-DB WP No. 9412 of 2021

¶52

second show-cause notice along with enquiry report was not served on the applicant therein with a further observation that, second show-cause notice is to be issued to the applicant therein and explanation, if any, submitted shall be considered and to proceed in the matter of imposing penalty. In the instant case also, the order which was subject matter of the above application before the Tribunal is under challenge. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of non-issuing of second show-cause notice along with the enquiry report.

¶53

In the light of the finding by the Tribunal that no second show-cause notice was issued along with the enquiry report and the petitioner had no opportunity to submit reply, we pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in-part .

¶56

(ii) The impugned order dated 7.09.2020

¶57

bearing No.NAE 12 MNG 2017 is quashed

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43395-DB WP No. 9412 of 2021

¶59

only on the ground that second showcause notice along with enquiry report is not furnished to the petitioner.

¶60

(iii) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to issue the second show-cause notice along with enquiry report to the petitioner along with the recommendation of the Upalokayukta and obtain reply if any, and pass appropriate order in the matter of imposing penalty.

¶61

(iv) The above exercise shall be completed

¶62

within three months from the date of receiving the order.

¶63

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶64

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶65

Sk/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nanjappa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.a.Jayalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Chief Executive Officer Vs Sri B v Somu

Sri Gopal a a Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Herald Rodrigues Vs the Registrar

Shri Abdul Rahim K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Megha Naik Vs the State of Karnataka