Karnataka High Court
Waman Rao Deshpande vs Chairman Nirmithi Kendra And Deputy ... on 17 March, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF' MARCH,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAJIT T _ .4 "
WRIT PETITION No.1 1674,ormoea._.(s§!DiS}f'e.ié
BETWEEN :
Waman Rae Deshpande,
S/0 Manik Rae Deshpande, _
Working as Project Ma'nager',--_ g E V
Nirmithi Kendra, V '
Gulbarga. V 1 ..
[now termina1;~eti' ««Tf15.?_)1I1 service) ..
... Petitioner
(By Sri} MM.i1>a;i1_,'3Adv§ca,;e} ;
AND ; E i V H
1. Ciiaimiian, ., V' V'
N__ii=m5i.ifhi.e_Kendra---and Deputy Commissioner,
E' ' .Gu1ba.1'ga" District,
E
2.' Karnataka
its Seéretary,
Depafiiment of Housing,
" *M_..AS. Building, BangaI0re--560 001.
{Q
3. The Managing Director,
Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation,
Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan,
Bar:igalore--560 O01.
Resporidentslss it
[By Sri. R.V. Nadagouda, AdvocatefforfR--1l''«_ -1 'A a n
Sri. M.Kumar. AGA for R~2, ' i V
R~3 served} .
This Writ Petition is filedjunder Articles and
227 of the ConstitutionV.y_of india'; , praying to direct the
respondents to conclude. '-and} fin.'alise_ the enquiry
proceedings initiated against petitioner by issue of
charge memo as-"per 'pass. appropriate and
suitable orders to ciiirect"thereswpondents to pay
subsistence~al14ofi.{a.nc'e..:toi' petitioner from the due
da.te till date' atcing With. ititierest and' also to consider the
represe_n.tation_/'reply for.__supp,ly:w'of the documents as
mentioned ther.ein?..so--_as_ to effectively defend himself
againstlthe 'charges in vtheenquiry proceedings or in the
alternative "direc_t' --the4"--.re'spondents to reinstate the
petitioner . serviced' -as Project Manager in the
respondent organization with all consequential service
-'V._and_"Vmiopnetary "benefits and if necessary pending
disposal' of the enquiry proceedings.
l"This 'petition coming on for preliminary hearing 'B'
V -V Group this "day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Project Manager in the Nirmithi Kendra, Giilbarga society registered under the Societies D' 1960 which is controlled by the' Department of Housing and ijrbbanpDer/e1op}'ner1t"
is a State under Article 12 of'thTe'iConstiti_1tiohi1
2. Respondentl'€Q.1--I{iendra Divas elnltrusted with the job of constriicting housing by imparting knov}l:e';dgeIA_to€ the II1a'£t€f Of building etc. The project is sponsored=_1_:)y _th'e_ Lloveifnment and U.D.C0., which is 1009/iii' state oriented. The said Kendra. is controlled by Ciiief.Sec'retar'y of Zilla Panchayat in his ex--offici.o caplacitgf Deputy Commissioner of District '.Vfo1l0iiiJedl"A.V.l:)hyl six members as Executive Committee A ~ Ti'./ienibers.
'_/F'
3. The petitioner it appears was working since 1994. According to him he was working efficiently without any bad remarks, much less any complaint against him both regarding his discharge of well as the integrity. Suffice it to disciplinary proceedings were iand initially suspension order was The petitioner it appearslfrnjakes on'' 10.03.2003 for reir1sta_t'eme1'it.:'.fv._:';'i;he._tpetitioner makes another representation One more on 08.02:.'2'0--03i...?v5. the first respondent passeduFar1-- order'.»A.pf_0f'suspension on 01.01.2004. The petitioner qu,estions"'.th'e said suspension order before 3 V""it1jiis cetii-t"*i_ii w.15§i\?t5.s32o/ 2004. The said writ petition altowfed the order of suspension was set aside. The..respon.iient issued article of charges on 13.10.2004. The respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner for _' "su'bs'istence ailowance. The petitioner makes a representation to the respondent for grant of subsistence allowance. In the meantime the second show cause notice was issued on 16.12.2005. A copy of which is produced at .AnneXure--'L' along report which was sent to the ' sought for three weeks time for ».defe--ncei'' 00 Petitioner also furnished his reply' cause notice denying all 0' him. The first respondent on 25.02.2006 terminating; the the petitioner. The rrgain" fo'f»..Vt'11e puetitvioner is that the said termination is vWtitl10U--tr"C011Sid€1'iI1g the reply to the second Show cause notice and without serving the same ,,.on }5etitioner.&VV"B'efore the event could take place on 4th.e'.1~~petitioner was before this Court in the pres«entV___vW:".it?' petition seeking for a direction to pay the .2."4"----.V:L"sul;)sistence allowance. This Court accepted the writ Jpetition pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2006 issued /*"//I 6 a direction to pay the subsistence allowance. This Court also observed that the first I'€SpOI1Cl€I1'[.."d.i:d.:vf}0t produce any document to show that taken place during the pendency of.t1j1e till' it then. A review petition was in Review Petition No.39é/§'oos in sjwritll petition. The said rgview allowfeswldgnd the order was recalled. inasmuch as the petitioner t-the But however the this Court to pay subsistence it is submitted at the that the direction issued by this Court. the ai'irstv.resp'ond.ent has deposited a sum of ~ alhelitllhefore the Principal Bench. Since terminated during this interregnumi setreifal appli~cations were filed for amending the petition also; for payment of the subsistence allowance. the matter was listed. before me on 31.10.2008 I fl had made an observation that since innumerable applications as well as petitions were filed for amending the writ petition, all the applications having been granted, it is rather difficult to go through Hence the petitioner was directed to file incorporating the applications v_ gtrtantedé H ll 00 Annexures etc. The paper booksiit :2'1ll5A'I5lears.
Incidentally pursuant the"?
amendments the relief whichlp_:'is"-sought"-fer': by the petitioner is to be foundgat starts with a requestlll--to'et CTgVour'tgt'o issue a writ of mandamus directing the resplondenttse «to conclude and finalize the enquiry prloceiedingslinithiated against the petitioner and '.°=for"-- piziyrricnt of lllll "subsistence allowance and for . intimation/order dated 30. 10.2004 issued bjr'Resp'ond~ent as illegal and void and all consequential Jdairectionl. The last of the prayer is to quash the 'irnpulgned order passed by the first respondent % AnneXure~'K' dated 25.02.2006 which is the termination order. Thus as of now we are concerned only with the last prayer i.e. Annexure~'K' pursuant to which---.'pthe petitioner has been terminated from services. ''
4. The learned counsel for the that indeed pursuant to cause notice was issued on_.1_6.
sought for some more time deféfié-e and the defence state~3f}'e.flt waslreceived by the Deputy Hence it is clear that' inipugr1»ed"~._order~ Annexure--'K' is passed without cotnsiderinlglthe"relply given to the second show cau..s.if; 'noticed.' " it violates Article 311 of the ":2 Cwlonsptitutio no of India.
counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 0 . suolfn.its.V:tliat indeed a reply was given to the second gsliow cause notice and was received in the office of the % 9 Deputy Commissioner on 10.01.2006. He submitsthat the reply ought to have been forwarded to respondent and not to the Deputy notwithstanding the fact that the Deputy' was also a Chairman of the fn?;.:1;_ Kendra. Hence he suppo1*t:s"'~~thel.i1n_pugried':'-border of termination.
6. I have.V_perused:..the-0ypapelifswClltpparentiy as observed ijpalppllioations are filed enquiry reports. But however for are required to consider only one question _whether reply given to the second _ shoxmjoause notieehas been considered by the enquiring a:,:iti*i_ori,_ty'. 'before terminating the services of the petitioner.l0'.V--".j1_n¥Eleed it is to be noticed that second show 'pause ..no;tioe was given on 16.12.2005 which was 1' lffreieeived by the petitioner on the same day. Immediately fl I. 0 thereafter the petitioner sought additional time to file his defence statement. That Communication is dated 26.12.2006 and within the extended period.-.___ the petitioner has filed his reply. A copy of produced at Ar1r1exure~'M'. Reply is Indeed it is to be noticed that thfa' i~éI3'1y' 2' Mfhe Deputy Gulbarga and ' ' "
Chairman, GULBARGA" V ' * Indeed the first respond'entA._caynnotfrrialge any grievance for ad*c__1ressing7t*he"letter----to the Deputy Commissioner. Indeed a"peru._sai o'f'tvtI1€:""$econd show cause notice dated 1e...i.iQ.i2ooe diseases that it has been signed by the 'Dep,ut"yr_ *..C.ora.missior1er, Gulbarga and Chairman .Nirr'nithi' Gulbarga. Obviously the reply is also given same authority who has signed the second show. Cause notice. Indeed in the circumstances first respondent cannot be heard to say that the reply has been given to the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga in his individual capacity and not as a llofg Nirrnithi Kendra. Apparently if Annexure.¢_'L"~-thefysencond _y show cause notice as well as looked into obviously the pVe'titione'I*._cannotV sending a reply to the frorn had received the second _nIr3.deledAlthe reply to the second show in the office of th'€l__.re-szpohdlengtl ;ofil'ii'o;"01.2006 and the impugned' o_n""25.02.2006 terminating the serlVice<s of Obviously this would be in Viol/ation'"'oflArticle. of the Constitution of India. "siettleldVi'ri"this regard. It is not really required be burdened with catenea of decision propoundingtthe proposition of law as envisaged under "3111 of the Constitution of India. Since the C' . lirnpugned order of termination is Without considering /% the repiy to the second show cause notice, I am of the View that AnneXure~'K' is liable to be quashed. Indeed the proceedings are required to commence from thedate of the petitioner filing his repiy to the cause notice. Needless to say that the A is required to issue a notice tohthe V embarking upon the enquiry ' against the petitioner. Indeedve:'.it"is to the Deputy Commissioner *a_1so_«"act'sVr-I Chairman of first respondent--Nirrr1:ithiV Ti. to the order dated
25.o7.2ooej and'.471:1"2'."(?1.20O7 directed the first respondient to "dep_o_si_t the subsistence allowance. The er1'tire ..amount_ is deposited pursuant to the various 'orders this Court. The first respondent has 'pdeposited sum of Rs.1,39,440/--. There is no reason it Vitocwhy the petitioner is not entitied atleast for a part / /,.,.n, J/,/., n is made absolute. fig 7 of the amount. Having said so, the following order is passed:
1} Petition is allowed. The it at Annexure-'K' stands .=;juashe_d7.; .3 _ V 'V .
2) Matter stands rem'it.ted t'o._'the it authority for fresh with law. V.--Need1c'ss=.'V._:toV"*s.ay the first respondent '4.'aii_th;ority shall issue notice' if tries» before embariijing u--po=in"";th'e into the cléulargesi it petitioner. The c5mménce..{£om stage of reply to 'theseeoiid ' cause notice.
3) entitled for 50% of the i'subsi'stenee_'allowance which is deposited "this Court. He is permitted to ' the same but however subject to _fi'r1:é._.l 'accounting.14
Mr. M.Kumar, learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance for Respondent No.2 within weeks .
Sr?
g/W swk