Karnataka High Court
Basavaraja S/O Bailappa Kattimani vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 7 September, 2018
Bench: S.Sujatha, Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
WRIT PETITION No.200614/2016 (GM-KLA)
Between:
Basavaraja
S/o Bailappa Kattimani
Aged about 42 years
Occ: First Division Assistant
Office of the Taluka Social Welfare
Vijayapura
R/o Plot No.179, Ganesh Nagar
Ibrahimpura
Vijayapura - 586101
...Petitioner
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary
Department of Social Welfare
Vikasa Soudha
Bangalore - 560001
2
2. The Karnataka Lokayukta
By Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta-1
Karnataka State
M.S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore - 560001
3. The Additional Registrar (Enquiries-I)
Karnataka Lokayukta
M.S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore - 560001
...Respondents
(By Sri K. M. Ghate, AGA for R1;
Sri S. S. Kumman, Advocate for R2 & R3)
This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue an appropriate writ, more
so in the nature of certiorari and quash the recommendation
dated 12.01.2016 made by the Hon'ble Upa Lokayukta-I,
Karnataka Lokayukta, State of Karnataka, Bangalore, in
No.LOK/ARE-1/ENQ-393/2012 at Annexure-C and to quash
the second show cause notice dated 30.01.2016 issued by the
respondent No.1 in File No.SaKAshe.2016, certified copy of
which is at Annexure-D and etc.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day,
S. SUJATHA J., made the following:
3
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 30.01.2016 (Annexure-D) to the writ petition issued by respondent No.1.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.1 in the impugned notice has referred to the recommendation made by respondent No.2 dated 12.01.2016 whereby a penalty of compulsory retirement from service 'on the DGO' is recommended. In view of such recommendation, respondent No.1 is bound to take a decision in conformity with the recommendation made by respondent No.2 which would adversely affect the rights of the petitioner as no purpose would be served in issuing the second show cause notice as provided under law. The show cause notice issued by the authorities should be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, providing an opportunity to the petitioner to advance his defence in accordance with law. The proposed show cause 4 notice is in violation of the fundamental principles of law whereby the reliance is placed on to the compulsory retirement from service, 'the recommendation of respondent No.2'.
3. Learned counsel Sri S.S.Kumman, appearing for respondent No.2 placing reliance on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pomu Rathod vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and Others in W.P.No.207034/2015 dated 01.03.2016 would submit that no writ petition is maintainable against a show cause notice, as no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to file this writ petition.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is 5 premature and the issue involved herein is no more res- integra in the light of the decision of this Court in W.P.NO.207034/2015 supra, whereby reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(3) SCC 64 in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh and Another and Vineet Narain vs. Union of India reported in 1998 (1) SCC 226.
6. The apprehension of the petitioner can be allied with an observation to the effect that any recommendation made by respondent No.2 is not a mandatory direction issued. Recommendation shall be considered by respondent No.1 in accordance with law taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the reply to be filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice at Annexure-D. It is thus made clear that the purpose of issuing show cause notice must be achieved by respondent No.1 in considering the matter in the light of the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex 6 Court as well as the recommendation of respondent No.1 qua the material to be placed by the petitioner in reply to the show cause at Annexure-D to the writ petition.
7. With these observations, we dismiss the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice at Annexure-D to the writ petition. In the event of any adverse order to be passed against the petitioner, it is needless to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Srt