Sri. C Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. C. RAMESH S/O LATE CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RESIDING AT NO.861, MEDARA BEDDI NEAR LAKSHMI TALKIES CHANNAPATNA-562 160

¶15

(BY SRI. R. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDINGS DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-571 112

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK KANAKAPURA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 112

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.01.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION No-5555-5556/2020 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND GRANT THE PETITIONER ALL THE RELIEFS SOUGHT BY HIM IN THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE KSAT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-'B' GRANT THE PETITIONER THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDINGS.

¶26

IN WP NO. 17866/2021

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. PUTTARAJU C S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR KAILAANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RESIDING AT NO.252A

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶30

MANJUNATH NAGAR, 5^TH CROSS JALAMANGALA MAIN ROAD RAMANAGARA TOWN-571 112

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

(BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶35

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-571 112

¶36

THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK KANAKAPURA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 112

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13/01/2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3833 AND 4173/2020 BY THE HON'BLE KSAT, BENGALURU AND GRANT THE PETITIONER ALL THE RELIEFS SOUGHT BY HIM IN THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE KSAT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶40

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

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶45

Petitioners - Civil servants working as Village Assistants, were before the State Administrative Tribunal vide application Nos.3833 & 4173 of 2020 connected with application No.5555 & 5556 of 2020, essentially laying a challenge to the initiation and conduct of disciplinary enquiry against them on the ground that during their tenure they had permitted Eagleton Resort near Bidadi to undertake some development activities in the subject land and also that they had not taken appropriate action against the said Resort, which allegedly had encroached the Government land when the status quo order of the Apex Court was in operation.

¶46

The Tribunal, not being impressed by their cases, dismissed the same by common order dated 13.01.2021, observing that it could not undertake a

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶48

deeper examination of disputed facts, which otherwise can be settled in an appropriately constituted enquiry. The petitioners should face the subject disciplinary proceeding.

¶49

Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners vehemently submit that the very substratum on which said enquiry is constituted does not exist, in the sense that the violation of Court order by the Eagle ton Resort is not only is not demonstrated but a Ten Member Committee headed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by its unanimous report dated 19.01.2012, has specifically recorded a finding that there is no violation of status quo order nor there is any work undertaken by the said Resort. That being the position the Tribunal, they submit, ought to have quashed the proceedings as being abuse of power.

¶50

4. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

¶51

made submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He contends that there are disputed questions of facts and

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶53

therefore, the truth would come out if the disciplinary proceedings are accomplished with the participation of the delinquent employees.

¶54

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶55

petitioners and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶56

5.1 A Civil servant enjoys status and certain rights such as right not to be subjected to unnecessary/unjustifiable disciplinary proceedings. Merely because one has power to hold disciplinary enquiry, that power cannot be exercised unless the jurisdictional facts are prima facie demonstrated. Minimum evidentiary material should be available to frame charges against the delinquent officials. In our considered view, absolutely there is no such material. Far from that, there is a wealth of material to prima facie show that the Eagleton Resort has not violated the status quo order dated 24.09.2002,

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶58

handed in SLP.Civil.No.18257/2002, then pending before the Apex Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are right in telling us that there is a Joint spot inspection report dated 19.01.2012 by a Ten Member Committee which concludes as under:

¶59

"E£ÀÄß½zÀAvÉ, ±Áå£ÀÄªÀÄAUÀ® UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.83gÀ°è ¥ÀÆwðAiÀiÁV UÁˉïá DlzÀ ªÉÄÊzÁ£À ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, F ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÁˉïà DqÀ®Ä G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è JgÀqÀÄ DlzÀ vÀAUÀÄzÁt/±ÉqïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¸ÀˉÁVzÉ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀArPÉUÀ¼À°è 896 ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À PÀæAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ PÀArPÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ CAzÀgÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ªÀ»ªÁlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ «ªÁ¢vÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À°èAiÀÄÆ £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀ ±ÀAPÉ EzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è UÀªÀÄ¤¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®¨sÀå EgÀÄªÀ zÁRˉÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀAvÉ ªÉÄ:FUÀˉïl£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ 2003gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ EvÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ CxÀªÁ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ CA±ÀªÀÅ ªÀåPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."

¶60

5.2 This report has not been kept in view while

¶61

framing the charge memo by the Jurisdictional Authority nor is it fully discussed by the Tribunal when the challenge was laid to the initiation of the enquiry. Thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The matter does not end with this. During the pendency of Writ Petition,

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶63

the counsel for the petitioner, vide memo dated 13.06.2024, have placed on record the undated Enquiry

¶64

Report. That was forwarded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Enquiry Officer to the Government vide letter dated 15.11.2021.

¶65

5.3 There was another Spot Inspection Report dated 29.05.2010 that has been reproduced by the Enquiry Officer. It reads as under:

¶66

"DzÀgÉ CzÀgÀAvÉ F §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀˉÁV F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀÛ ¸ÀASÉå:gÁfPÀ/JˉïJ£ïr/¹Dgï/109/2009-10 ¢£ÁAPÀ 2905-2010 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ dAn ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶67

"±Áå£ÀÄªÀÄAUÀ® UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À,£ÀA .83 gÀ°è ¥ÀÆwðAiÀiÁV UÁˉïá DlzÀ ªÉÄÊzÁ£À ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, F ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÁˉïá CqÀ®Ä G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è JgÀqÀÄ DlzÀ vÀAUÀÄzÁt/±ÉqïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¸ÀˉÁUÀzÉ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀArPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 896 ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À PÀæAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ PÀArPÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ CAzÀgÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ «ªÁ¢vÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À°è £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀ ±ÀAPÉ EzÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß EªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è UÀªÀÄ¤¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®¨sÀå EgÀÄªÀ zÁRˉÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀAvÉ ªÉÄ:FUÀ®Ö£ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ 2003 gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ EvÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ CxÀªÁ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ CA±ÀªÀÅ ªÀåPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ" JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀˉÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶69

The enquiry report at its conclusion part had

¶70

stated as under:

¶71

"F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ »AzÉ¬ÄAzÀ®Æ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁRˉÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁj, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä °TvÀ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ°è «ZÁgÀuÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶72

ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24-09-2002 gÀ°è AiÀÄxÁ¹ÜwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁ¥ÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ' Made Absolute' JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21-07-2003 gÀ°è DzÉÃ²¸ÀˉÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C®èzÉ "2003 gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ EvÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ CxÀªÁ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ CA±ÀªÀÅ ªÀåPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ" JAzÀÄ F »A¢£À fˉÁè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À dAn vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV ¸À°è¹zÉ."

¶73

Mr.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing in

¶74

one of the petitions, vehemently argues and we agree with the same, that the Tribunal appears to have misdirected itself in law; it proceeds on an unrealistic premise that

¶75

every case involving disputed facts invariably land in disciplinary enquiry. We do not subscribe to that view because that would breed great injustice to the civil servants, whichever be their rank. It hardly needs to be

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶77

stated that in one sense, Service Tribunals established under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 exercise writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. Such a view gains support from L.CHANDRA KUMAR V/S UNION OF INDIA¹ . Courts and Tribunals cannot turn away a worthy cause involving legal injury by quoting some jurisprudential theories. Contra premise if operated would shake the confidence of civil servants in the adjudicatory abilities of such Tribunals. This would not augur well to the public interest. A wealth of material some how escaped the cognizance of the Tribunal and that has made these innocent civil servants to undergo years of turmoil. That is a bad thing to happen in a Welfare State which has to treat its employees with soft gloves and as a model employer vide BHUPENDRANATH HAZARIKA vs. STATE OF ASSAM² .

¶78

1 AIR 1997 SC 1125

¶79

2 (2013) 2 SCC 516

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶81

The last contention of the petitioners counsel

¶82

that the subject disciplinary proceedings have been initiated very belatedly with no plausible explanation for the delay brooked and therefore, the same are liable to be faltered, need not be treated by us, since we have decided the matter on its intrinsic merits. Of course, we are aware

¶83

of a catena of decisions of Apex Court wherein it is held that delay per se is no ground for interference, if some explanation for the same is demonstrable from the records.

¶84

In the above circumstances, these petitions are allowed with the following directions:

¶85

[i] A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned common order of the Tribunal. The Application Nos.3833 & 4173 of 2020 connected with Application Nos.5555 & 5556 of 2020 having been favoured, the subject enquiry proceedings are set at naught.

¶86

[ii] A Writ of Mandamus issues to the official respondents to grant to the petitioners all consequential benefits (both service and monetary), within an outer limit of twelve

¶87

12 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:11869-DB WP No. 17864 of 2021 C/W WP No. 17866 of 2021

¶89

weeks and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks next following.

¶90

(iii) If compliance is not reported as directed above, it is open to the petitioners to move a Memo so that some stringent action may be taken against the erring officials.

¶91

Costs reluctantly made easy.

¶92

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶93

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶94

AM

¶95

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri. C Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

Sri. C Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs R Lakshman

M/S Pinakini Educational Trust Vs M/S Sir M Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Sri. Satish Kumar M C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R v Jathanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajashekaraiah K v Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer-I

Sri Raghumurthy N Vs the State of Karnataka