Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Narasimha Swamy D L on 8 August, 2018
Bench: A.S.Bopanna, Mohammad Nawaz
1
WP.No.23433/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
WRIT PETITION NO.23433/2018 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
IN KARNATAKA, PARK ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA)
AND:
SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY D.L.,
S/O LATE LAKSHMIKANATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
R/AT, NO.7-2-51D,
VADIRAJA CROSS ROAD, UDUPI,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 576 101.
...RESPONDENT
2
WP.No.23433/2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 14.07.2017 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION
NO.1954/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, A.S. BOPANNA J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners/State is before this Court, assailing the Order dated 14.07.2017 passed in Application No.1954/2016. Through the said Order, the KAT has set aside the impugned Order dated 14.08.2015 as at Annexure - A9 and has directed that the consequential benefits be paid. Through the Order which was impugned before the KAT, a portion of the pensionary benefit was withheld under the rules. The respondent herein was working as Assistant Registrar of Co-operatives Societies, Puttur. During his tenure, one Sri. Mohan had lodged a complaint with Lokayuktha against one Sri. P. Muddu, Executive Officer, Mogera Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Puttur Taluk and six others. The said complaint was sent to the respondent herein seeking for report in 3 WP.No.23433/2018 that regard. The charge alleged against the respondent is that he did not submit the report to the Lokayuktha as directed even though notices were issued to him on 05.03.2013 and 04.04.2013. Subsequent thereto, a show cause notice dated 03.05.2013 was also sent and the matter was entrusted to Upalokayukta to hold enquiry against the respondent. It is in the said process, the respondent herein is held guilty through the Enquiry Report dated 02.03.2015 and penalty of reduction of monthly pension by 5% was recommended by the Upalokayukta. It is in that light, the respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved, was before the KAT assailing the same.
2. The KAT while taking note of the rival contention, has taken into consideration the sequence of events and also the reason for which the respondent herein was not in a position to send the report immediately and the fact that he had subsequently sent report on 17.12.2013. Hence it was of the opinion that if 4 WP.No.23433/2018 the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Vs. Karunakar B. reported in KAR 1994 SC 1074 and in the case of Yuvaraja Naik J.M. Vs. State (1996 KSLJ 92), a decision passed by the Tribunal is kept in view the action against the respondent would not be justified. Hence, having taken into consideration these aspects, the impugned Order dated 14.08.2015 was set aside.
3. Learned Government Advocate while assailing the Order passed by the KAT would contend that the KAT has not kept in view the fact that the respondent despite issue of notices earlier on 05.03.2013 and 04.04.2013 had not sent the report and as such the action in any event was required against the respondent.
4. In that light, it is contended that the Enquiry Officer through the Report dated 02.03.2015, had taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and had arrived at the conclusion that the respondent herein was 5 WP.No.23433/2018 guilty and therefore the KAT ought not to have interfered with the Order impugned.
5. In the background of the contention put forth, we have perused the petition papers including the Order passed by the KAT impugned herein. A perusal of the same would indicate that the KAT in fact has taken into consideration the manner in which the entire issue had arisen whereunder the respondent was required to make an enquiry and send the report to the Lokayukta. To that extent, the complaint which had been forwarded to the respondent for enquiry was against the Office bearers of a Credit Cooperative Society and in that circumstance, the respondent was required to make an enquiry. It is no doubt true that the respondent had not sent the report immediately thereafter and the notices dated 05.03.2013 and 04.04.2013 was also issued seeking for the report. The explanation sought to be put forth on behalf of the respondent was that during the said period, since the general election to the legislative assembly was under 6 WP.No.23433/2018
process, immediately the steps could not be taken in that regard. However, the fact remain that the respondent has subsequently sent report on 17.12.2013.
6. In that background, a consideration of the Enquiry report dated 02.03.2015 no doubt would indicate that opportunity was granted to the respondent and thereafter on assessment of the evidence available, the Enquiry report was submitted holding the respondent guilty of the charge. However, as rightly noticed by the KAT, the consideration that was required in an appropriate manner by the Disciplinary Authority is after taking note of the reply submitted by the respondent herein, after the Enquiry report was submitted and furnished to him. It is in that view, the KAT has kept in view the decisions as referred supra and has arrived at the conclusion that an appropriate consideration has not been made by the Disciplinary Authority thereafter.
7. Further, the KAT has also taken into consideration Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSR and in that light 7 WP.No.23433/2018 keeping in view the fact that the maximum that could be alleged against the respondent is the delay in submitting the report and has therefore arrived at the conclusion that the misconduct alleged against the respondent cannot be considered as a grave misconduct so as to deny the portion of pensionary benefit. Hence in that circumstance, having taken note that the KAT has adverted to all aspects of the matter and in that light, keeping in view the factual aspect involved herein has taken into consideration, the proposition of law and has thereafter has arrived on its conclusion. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the Order passed by the KSAT which is impugned herein.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Snc CT-NR