Karnataka High Court
Krishnappa S/O Hussainappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 31 May, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 201355 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 201355 OF 2022 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNAPPA S/O HUSSAINAPPA
AGE : 52 YEARS,
OCC : JUNIOR ENGINEER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
RAICHUR,
R/O 8-1056, HARIJANWADA,
GAJGARPETH, RAICHUR-585103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by B
NAGAVENI
Location:
AND:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-09.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VISHWESHWARAYYA TOWER,
9TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-01.
-2-
WP No. 201355 of 2022
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR-584101.
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI GOURISH S.KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF
DISMISSAL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE NO.COMP
NO.27550 FILE NO. DCRAI-PDOENGG/60/2022-PD (UD)
RAICHUR DATED 04.06.2022 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY ORDER FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER INTO SERVICE ALONG WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :-
"To issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order of dismissal passed by the respondent No.3 vide No.Comp No.27550 File No.DCRAI-PDOENGG/60/2022-PD (UD) Raichur dated 04.06.2022 which is at Annexure-A and consequently order for the reinstatement of the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice."-3- WP No. 201355 of 2022
2. The petitioner claims to be the holder of ITI and Diploma courses in Civil Engineering, who had been appointed as Draftsman on a temporary basis and subsequently promoted as Junior Engineer on 18.11.2004. The petitioner was entrusted with the work of supply of pure drinking water to Raichur City vide order dated 20.05.2022. It is alleging that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner in supplying pure and clean drinking water due to which three deaths occurred in Raichur, the post mortem indicating that the deaths were on account of gastrointestinal infection, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 30.05.2022 which was replied by the petitioner on 02.06.2022. Not being satisfied with the said reply, the petitioner being a temporary worker was terminated from the services under Section 6 of the Karnataka Daily Wages Employees Welfare Act, 2012 vide impugned order dated 04.06.2022 which is under challenge in the present proceedings. -4- WP No. 201355 of 2022
3. Sri.P.Vilaskumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.Nitesh Padiyal, for the petitioner would submit that- 3.1 Though it is contended that principles of natural justice has been followed, the principles of natural justice would require a full fledged enquiry to be held in the matter. He submits that when the supply was made from the water treatment plant, the water was proper and it is only thereafter it might have got contaminated for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. 3.2 The citizens are digging pits below the tap to fetch more water on account of which there might have been a contamination of water and also due to heavy rains. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner cannot be made responsible for any contamination of the water and/or the deaths requiring his dismissal from service. -5- WP No. 201355 of 2022
4. Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that, 4.1 The defence raised by the petitioner are all hogwash. The fact remains that there are three deaths which have occurred on account of contaminated water.
4.2 A show cause notice having been issued to the petitioner, a reply was received and reply not making out any grounds and having been considered, the principles of natural justice have been satisfied. The petitioner who was appointed on a temporary basis, his services have been terminated and another Assistant Executive Engineer who incidentally is the brother of the petitioner has been suspended from service pending departmental enquiry. She submits that this Court ought not to intercede in the matter. -6- WP No. 201355 of 2022
5. Heard Sri.P.Vilaskumar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.Nitesh Padiyal for the petitioner and Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the papers.
6. The fact of three deaths having occurred is not in dispute. The cause of death is acute gastroenteritis infection is also not in dispute. The only contention of the petitioner is that when the water was supplied, it was proper and the contamination might have occurred on account of the persons digging below the tap to fetch more water. Such a vague defence which has been raised by the petitioner has been considered by the respondents and his service was terminated.
7. The petitioner who was in-charge of the water treatment plant is required to establish that the water was treated properly and that the output at the water treatment plant met the requirements. The petitioner -7- WP No. 201355 of 2022 has not been able to prove or has not done either in the reply to the show cause notice or in the present petition.
8. The petitioner being vested with the responsibility of supplying clean drinking water to the residents of Raichur cannot now seek to contend that he is not responsible and the contamination might have occurred at the tap due to digging below, which is a practice followed by the people in the Raichur. On enquiry, as to whether this was informed by the petitioner to his superiors that there is a possibility of contamination occurring, it is submitted that no such information was submitted. The said contention has only been taken after the deaths when a show cause notice was issued. Assuming but not conceding that the said contention is true, it was required for the petitioner to have informed his superiors about such possibility. Not having done so also amounts to gross negligence and dereliction of duties.
-8-WP No. 201355 of 2022
9. The petitioner has in his reply at Annexure-F given the names of six persons who were also working with the petitioner under his supervision. It is categorically stated that necessary instructions had been issued by the petitioner to the said six persons to perform the duties and that they had performed their duties except for the electrician who had not brought to the notice the defect in a clarifier which was also subsequently rectified.
10. The defence which has been taken is that there might be leakage in the pipe and on account of digging below the tap, there could be contamination, in my considered opinion, cannot be accepted and has rightly been rejected by the respondents. The cause shown in the reply to the show cause notice not being sufficient to deny the liability of the petitioner, more so when the petitioner has only given vague possibilities of the contamination without establishing that works carried out by him have been proper, is not justifiable. The petitioner being entrusted with the responsible position -9- WP No. 201355 of 2022 of supplying clean drinking water which has not been complied with resulting in three deaths. The petitioner being a temporary worker, I am of the considered opinion that the principles of natural justice have been followed by issuance of show cause notice and consideration of the reply.
11. Sri.P.Vilaskumar, learned Senior Counsel relies upon the decision of this Court in Mary Kutty vs. The Hindusthan Times and another 1 to contend that even as regards a trainee, when a stigmatic order is sought to be made, there has to be complete enquiry to be carried out. The said decision in my considered opinion would not apply to the present case, inasmuch as, in that case, the person was appointed as a Telex Printer Operator designated as part-time Telex Print Operator, as a trainee, which period was being extended from time to time and services were terminated on account of improper performance and behaviour. This Court while considering the said 1 ILR 2006 KARNATAKA 1772
- 10 -
WP No. 201355 of 2022matter had come to a conclusion that for the purpose of assessment of the performance by the employer, there has to be necessary enquiry held. The said order of termination was subjective order which had been passed.
12. In the present case, the order of termination being one on the basis of supply of contaminated water which is established by the postmortem report, I am of the considered opinion that no such detailed enquiry as contemplated in Mary Kutty's case is required to be conducted.
13. Another decision relied upon by Sri.P.Vilaskumar, learned Senior Counsel, is Mallikarjun S/o Ningappa Pujari vs. The State of Karnataka and others 2. The said decision was rendered on the basis of the concession made by the counsel for the respondent that enquiry has to be held and that was a matter relating to a Computer Operator appointed on a 2 W.P.No.200641/2017 disposed of on 05.08.2020
- 11 -
WP No. 201355 of 2022permanent basis and not on a temporary basis. As such, the said decision would also not apply to the present case.
14. There being no grounds made out, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN/NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6