Sri Lakshmana Vs the Additional Cheif Secretary to Government

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY SOUTHERN RANGE, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE, LOKARANJAN MAHAL ROAD, NAZARBAD, MYSURU-570010.

¶21

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HYDER ALI ROAD, KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA CIRCLE, JALAPURI, MYSURU-570019.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1.ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OF DIRECTION, SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGE OF KSAT IN APPLICATION NO.2915/2019 DATED 09/11/2021 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-Y OF THE WRIT PETITION; 2. CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/12/2018 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, MARKED AS ANNEXURE-T AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:28954-DB WP No. 5029 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

¶33

09.11.2021 in ApplicationNo.2915/2019 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) rejecting petitioner’s request to quash the endorsement dated 17.11.2015 treating the period between 11.01.2010, i.e., the date of dismissal to 15.08.2014 i.e., the date of reinstatement, as “dies-non” period.

¶34

Heard learned counsel Sri.Madhu G.S., for Smt.Latha D.L., learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondents-State. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶36

the petitioner was convicted for the offenses punishable under Sections 344, 348, 326, 211 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(i)(viii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28954-DB WP No. 5029 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Based on the said conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure-C). The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of conviction in Criminal Appeal No.903/2009. This Court, by judgment dated 08.07.2013 set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the petitioner and others of the charges leveled against them. Pursuant to the acquittal, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.07.2013 requesting for reinstatement into service. The respondents, by order dated 13.08.2014 reinstated the petitioner into service. Thereafter, the petitioner said to have submitted a representation requesting the respondents to treat the period during which he was out of service as, on duty. Under impugned order dated 17.11.2015, respondent No.4 rejected the request of the petitioner and directed to treat the period between 11.01.2010 i.e., the date of dismissal, to 15.08.2014 i.e., the date of reinstatement as dies-non. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:28954-DB WP No. 5029 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Application No.2915/2019 and the Tribunal, by impugned order dated 09.11.2021 rejected his prayer. Against which, the present writ petition.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, on acquittal submitted a representation on 24.07.2013 requesting reinstatement, but the petitioner was reinstated only on 13.08.2014. Further, placing reliance on the Circular dated 05.07.2002 as well as Rule 99 of KCSRs, he would submit that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of the period from 11.01.2010 to 15.08.2014 as on duty and he would be entitled for full pay and allowances. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to take note of the above provision and erroneously rejected petitioner’s application. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶45

Per contra, learned AGA would support the order passed by the Tribunal. Further, he would submit that the petitioner was convicted and as such, he was debarred

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28954-DB WP No. 5029 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

from attending office. Therefore, he justifies denial to treat the period during which he was out of service as ‘on duty’ and he further submits that the respondents have rightly treated the said period as dies-non. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to treat the entire period during which he was out of service as on duty and whether he would be entitled for full backwages for the said period.

¶50

Answer to the above point would be partly in the affirmative and the petitioner would be entitled for backwages from the date of representation demanding reinstatement on his acquittal dated 24.07.2013 to the date of restatement i.e., 13.08.2014. However, the petitioner would be entitled to treat the entire period during which he was out of service for other purposes other than backwages.

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28954-DB WP No. 5029 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶54

AND ANOTHER v/s MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIM

¶55

reported in (2013)11 SCC 67 has clearly held that where the government servant is acquitted of the criminal charges against him, he would become entitled for reinstatement. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that such government servant would be entitled to

¶56

claim backwages only from the date of demand for reinstatement. In the instant case, the petitioner under representation dated 24.07.2013 sought reinstatement. But the petitioner was reinstated only on 13.08.2014 after more than a year. In the above circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled for backwages from 24.07.2013 till he was reinstated on 13.08.2014.

¶57

The petitioner would not be entitled for backwages from the date of dismissal to the date of setting aside conviction on 11.01.2010 to 24.07.2013. The said period is the period during which he suffered conviction. During

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28954-DB WP No. 5029 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

the period of conviction, the petitioner was undergoing conviction and he was not in a position to attend to his duties. Therefore, under the said circumstance, he would not be entitled for backwages. However, on his acquittal, he would be entitled to count the said period for other consequential benefits except backwages.

¶61

With the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the backwages from 24.07.2013 till the petitioner was reinstated i.e., on 13.08.2014. To the above extent the order of the Tribunal impugned herein is modified.

¶62

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶64

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri Lakshmana v. the Additional Cheif Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmana v. the Additional Cheif Secretary to Government

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 Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vanitha N Vs the State of Karnataka

The Registar Karnataka Lokayuktha Vs State of Karnataka