Karnataka High Court
B Venugopal vs United India Insurance Co Ltd on 1 February, 2013
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
ON THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.46654/2012 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI B VENUGOPAL
S/O VENKATRAMANA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O. 1-336, A2, GIRI RAO STREET,
MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-570 001. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A KESHAVA BHAT & SRI K SRIKRISHNA, ADV.)
AND
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
5TH & 6TH FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
R/BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
5TH & 6TH FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-7,
SRI. SAIRAM TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR,
NO.24, SIR PUTTANNA CHETTY ROAD,
5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-18 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R RAJAGOPALAN, ADV. )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO CASE NO.BRO:DISPER.0348:2012
FROM THE FILE OF THE R2 & ON PERUSAL OF THE
SAME. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DT.2.11.12, BY THE R2 VDIE ANN-A. AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner was employed under the first respondent as an Assistant and presently he is an Administrative Officer. A complaint was lodged with the respondent that he has obtained his employment by producing a false certificate that he belong to a ST community. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent requested the Tahsildar for clarification, who in-turn stated that no certificate was issued. 3 Based on this, an article of charge was issued to the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24109/2011 wherein by the order dated 6.2.2012, the Writ Petition was partly allowed in the following terms:
"(1) The writ petition is partly allowed. (2) The impugned enquiry proceedings at Annexure-D dated 22.06.2010 is hereby quashed.
(3) The respondents are at liberty to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner with regard to his caste. If it is found that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner with the respondent - Company is false, then they are at liberty to initiate domestic enquiry proceedings against him in accordance with law."
Thereafter, the respondents obtained a certificate from the concerned authority namely the Tahsildar with regard to his caste. On the basis of the letter of the Tahsildar dated 5.3.2010 and the memorandum of charges dated 22.6.2010 the aforesaid order was passed in the said writ petition. Thereafter, the appropriate 4 authority namely the Tahsildar issued a letter to the petitioner stating that he does not belong to SC/ST community. As a consequence thereof, the respondents have now issued the impugned order of termination. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of termination is opposed to law when the order passed by the learned single judge in the writ petition referred to above has not been complied. The learned single judge has very clearly stated that it is open to the respondent to request the concerned authority to investigate the matter and to find out the correct caste of the petitioner. If the result of such an investigation that he does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community, then the respondents were to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. The same has not been done. Merely on receipt of the letter mentioning the caste of the petitioner by the Tahsildar, they straight away proceeded to dismiss the petitioner . Hence, he pleads Annexure-A is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5
3. On the other hand Sri R. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the respondents defend the impugned order. He submits that there is no question of initiating any proceedings as a result of receipt of the caste certificate. That on the receipt of the reply about the caste certificate, the only option is to terminate the service, which he has done. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the learned single judge has not been complied with. What has been directed therein is to initiate departmental enquiry in accordance with law. In accordance with law would mean only dismissal simplicitor without any enquiry. The learned single judge while disposing off the writ petition has also made the following observations at para 5 of the judgment which reads as follows:
"5. However, it is open for the respondent-Company to request the concerned authority to investigate the matter and to find out the correct caste of petitioner. On such investigation, if it is found that the petitioner do not belong to the Schedule Tribe, 6 then the respondent - Company to initiate the proceedings in accordance with law."
Firstly, the respondent company has to request the concerned authority to investigate the correct caste of the petitioner. Secondly, on such an investigation, if it is found that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe then the respondent- company was directed to initiate proceedings. In the circumstances, admittedly, no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. He has been terminated from service only because of the letter of the Tahsildar that he does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. This is in violation of the Rules and principles of natural justice. It is in violation of the order passed by this court.
4. Under these circumstances, they can be no order of termination purely based on the letter of Tahsildar. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner should have been issued with show-notice, he should have been heard and proceedings should have commenced. Failure to do so, would lead to miscarriage 7 of justice. The dismissal simplicitor without an enquiry is unsustainable under the Law. No man can be punished unheard. That is exactly that has been done in this case. Without giving reasonable opportunity, the petitioner has been terminated.
5. In the circumstances and in view of the directions to hold a departmental enquiry, having not been done, in terms of the direction issued by the learned single judge in the writ petition referred to above, the order of dismissal is bad in law.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the second respondent is quashed. In view of disposal of the writ petition, IA 1/2012 for direction does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
7. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to pursue his remedies available, which 8 may even include issuance of the notice to the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL