Karnataka High Court
Jagadeesh S/O S V Ramaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
iN THE HIGH CC¥UR'T UF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 1€S'h day of November 2010 H
2 B E F C) R E I
HONBLE MRJUSTICE : v.JAGANNATiiE§N:'A;'Tiii.
WRIT PE'PITIC1N N0. 5992 /12910 IELRESE i
BETWEEN :
Jagadeesh, _
S/0 S.V.Ramaia};1, Aged 3'1} y<:ra'r:a,i~-»°
Working as Sub~§nspector,r;f.F?01ice_.
Presentljgr working. at H€bi}ur.Pd}ice: ' "
Station, Tumkuij. 1' V A i' ii
...PctitioI1er
{ By 32;:Raghzii-patiiiég,K,.:":i.;;imc.s;fié'16;} M/s A.H.Law Fincn. )
A N D ;
1. State of "E{a1'n;a;iia1-riaai
13y its iiqme Secretary,
Es-g1gai0m--56O O01.
'IIis';)§c*%§5r AV.Ge.nera1 of Police,
'¥'__N'ru'p&5ii1u1i'g2aL Roaci, Ba11ga1oIt:~56O 001.
V i 3. "=«Su"p*:;I'iI1ienden£ ofPo1ice,
'i"u,r1ii:ur Division, Tumkur.
AA Vifiepilty Superintendent ofPo1ice,
" Afiadhizgiri Sub» Division,
Madhugiri, Tumkur.
SI11t.I).R.Rajeshwa1i.
Wfo 'I'.S.K331t11a1'aju, Major,
R/a Behind HMS School, IDSMT Layout,
Sim Gate, Tumkiir.
... Respondents
f By Sri Jagadeesh Muridargi. G.A. for R31 to 4. Smt.K.Mahal3ksh1ni, Advocate for R-5. ) '3
4. Writ Petitiozl fiied praying to quash _.._t;he commurlication dated 28.10.2009 issued by Vide A11I1ex--A, etc. This pettition coming on for p1'e1i_1:1in;3i'}i' in " "
'B' group this day, the court made:=§he:f01§o{ei1i:g.':'--._ 4' 'A The initiagtioe or against the petitioner' in respect of certain sees " of the petitioner folloufingthe by R~5 with the State Human Rights 'C'.onf;1m,ssi0nn and the subsequent order '"'~d.f1ted__j "{A3;1I2ex11re~(3) by which amount of to compensation to complainant Rajesfiwa1_'i is?.V_®ught to be recovered in instaihnents are 'being called in question in this Writ pet_i1:ioz1. = facts in brief are that. Ru": Rajeshwari lodged a v..eo:§1plajz1t with the State Human Rights Commission ~ also before R«-3 alleging that the petétiorler visited her house on 5. 1 1.12008 at 6.45 p.111. and asked about the whereabouts of iiihusband Ksxuharaju and on being iI1foI'med that Ka::1ti1a.i'aju was not in the hofise, the petitione1'_, being a Police Sub--II1spector "
Ttmlkur Town Police Station. said to have_.£§§i3!ise§i compiajnant and misbehaved witliiii have abused the comp1ai11ante'bj§f the V caste arld, therefore, these aefs. _1V;hea peifiifiener, who was holding a responeiléle » 'Police ()ffi(:e1'_, therefore, 1'eq11§i1*e '.isex_1z_eij*eViy. Based on the 21 (::{'imina1 case was else' tiieviibeififioner apart from a report Police Supez1'ntei1den'{ of T1i1Iik1:--1'., Diviéioii. ' V. ' "vsu'iqmissie1i"'ef the petitioner's counsel is that me' V;epQifL--.,_!0fi' which is produced at A1mexure-E, goes sj.1e§_s%43'..tiiat the complaint was given by R---5 with '""~.__f.iae ii1te2i1ii1oi1 of avoiding the complainant and her i 1i::;si;:a}}1.d being evicted from the house in which they wweie residing and, therefore, the report gave a ciean chit to the petitioner by holding that the coinpiaint allegations are far from truth. The iearned coimsei aiso Sm}:-mii.:te(l that €iV€iI"1 rkfirc/:1'i1;1i;"'1al case :'egist:ered against _ t i the petitionez' also did not go further because, this in Writ. Petfiion No. 4144/2009, allowed filed by this petitioner under Section 482 of 811d quashed the proeeedillgs irgitiatedjj. T. s 150/2009, which case was ir1.r_espei::'_Lf_"ef allegations made by R4") hereiza'
4. Refetrrirlg to developments subsequent fie _pf._t;he eompiaint, the learned ceunsel _,.f0I'_ "'tlfie;*--1 that when the petitioner was ---- 'of the allegations made against €11.z_es£ibQ".."0f subjecting him once again .--.tA'_;e aV_»*(:§iseipii11a3jf "'3I1qV_§4l§£I:V in respect, of the very same '7ei";.aii'geT :i10t arise and it amomlts ta doubie jeepaftly. A 'E.}'3*:';ei*'eVfore. Annexures--A and (3 be quashed as 'vthe said eifiders issued are eontrargx to the law laid down court as well as by the Apex Ceurt. Support is for the aforesaid submissions by relyizrzg on the 2 fideeisions reported in 11.2 2003 Kmnataka 35, (209731; SCC 51'? and (2004}i3 SCC 342 to contend that, once the petitjonel' is exollelated of the charge ieveiled 3* 3 against him, on the very saxne charge, -., enquiry could not he proceeded with.
.3. The submission of the '»§4ea1fI}eéi freverzizmg-e;1'Li,e_* Advocate for R-1 to R43 is «--qua:§hiag of i{E:'1'e{g::<i_31}i§1a1 case by this court i113 the ~ the petitioner has not11i1ig';'--zV:i:0A ciiscipiinary enquiry far erder passed as per pursuant to the order Rights Commission, which " to pay Rs.25,000/-- as compensaiion to R-E». V V:¥ea:fr1edV"VCt}'u13seI for R--5 also submitted on the '§.'_r:ff*»'}. 'V = iiaeg as put fonvard by the learned GOVf:31fI1II16I!t_ Advocate.
Having thus heard both sides, Whether irxitjation of by ES as per Am1.exure--A and the subsequent _or§i:":r directing 1'e(:ove:'_v of compensafiorl agmount from * .. t;he petitioner can be said its be sustajnabie in Eaw is the
-ziuestiazz. %/
8. It has to be :'ner1tioneEi at the outset that in respecfi of the very same charge or aiiegatiorl in rega1'(1;"f0'i§;hie};.v _ the enquiry has been ordered as per A1me5§L1re~.{i\;.A " 'V report has been given by R43 stating fbait ~CG§r:'p'i.ej_n{;ve AA allegations false and iii~n'1e.t_jvat.e6j_. 'l'hee.'§§£1.:igd:<_v;fep}DrtM of R-3 is at A111"1€3X11I'C-E edateti 12.2008. 'Though '"Z{'L1311kL1r Town ease in Crime No. 150/2009 againSt:.Athe.::peLitjQ;1erv_ i:2'i;'1*espeCt of an offence 'i3(I)(iX) of the SC 85 ST Act, thive' petition filed by the pet:iI':io:1erA* }1:'1der of the Cr.P.C. and the proceedings Cifiziie 50/ 12009 were quashed. '_[)€1'}d<3I1C}' of a criminai ease cannot act as.a~"i;:er"f€ir,,V_i1i{;i2it:iz1g disciplinary proceedings, yet, it is _a sett.1ed..__"Iaw:"" that when the crfiminal case is heici in ..444"--l'7 es.to3.1_.1' of" "the petritiener, ordering disciplinaljv enquiry ¢n:«:e:.:;-3 very same ailegation or charge is impermissible "in 'Law. In the i11s1;aI1t Case, on the very same aliegations D' made by R-5, report. was called far from R-3 and the said report was to the effect {he}: the comgliaint was 23. ffiveietzs (me am} was in-motivated. The very;-* same 4 <:omp1a§11t. aiso Ied to 21 case being reg_iLs;§e:jeciV against the petitioner in CI'i1I1€ No. 150/ . court, in W.P.No. 4144/12009, quashed V the course of the order, has obserixed 1t1"1:--"it ingredielits of Section 3{ I){1X)"o_f""t11e ST' ere not satisfied. When sueh bei11g--f1'1f3 Dositioi1.-- vonce again reqt1iri1_1g the petitiorleeio T fiortieai of facing the ciisei.p1inaI'fy" fioeeeé-i1}gs" the very same charge base€i_VVoI--:__"t'§_1e lodged by R-6. therefore, susfiaiexed law.
10. In the ILR 200:3 Karnataka 35, 21 DiViS§i0§"1_.}3€Ia1C§1V()fV;(I"1i.Ei court has heki that an employee eé.i1not elrmrged with the same misconduct twice eitl_3ei__j_ %1A)3'z* of two charge memos or by conducting V two fii'ep2L{91:i1;ei'1tai enquiries. However, the said position; subject' to two exceptions and the first one is where efierge memo is quaslled by a court or tribunal for 'fiteefmicai reasons reserving liberty to issue fresh charge ' A memo or to hold fresh enquiry and the second exception is where the efxmge memo is withdrawn} reserving liberty to iesue fresh charge memo.
Si /7.
8
11. In the instant case, the aforesaid exceptions __are not attracted because, the writ petition filed l_'z§s--._'ttV1e,v'4 petitioner was allowed and the F.l.R. ' Without giving any liberty to 14343 «to 2 proceedings.
1:2. In another decision of 'Apex in (:2004)13 SCC 342, it 11215 been» ltfleeeeond penalty baee§l*ii_of_1V the of action would aI1}.G1111'£?_l.O doiifiie _jveopa1jd'yu___ _ *
13. Anothlero €lecisio..s1s'«..to be referred to in this is tlie'vv~--one reported in 2{)09-IVmLLJ"~663 l'w:fle1fe'§;3:1 " been held that, Where on same set of faete-@111 oféilereof acquittal is passed by the criminal Clepartxnental exlquiry again on the same set of liable to be quashed.
In the light of the aforesaid position in -law and the » «'t:0II}plaiI1f. allegations have been foumi to be frivolous both by R-3 and the very F'.li.R. regstered on the basis of the complaint given b 5 also having been quashed by CkCf.f' 9 this court in the afomlnentioned writ: petition, A4 of an enquiry once again to look into the "
ailegatiolls, therefore. is contrary to thfi Apex Court and this court "
Elfidt-i:I' challenge are iiable to
15. In the result, the :;:4x}.1owed and the impugned ordev1's a1_; are quashed.
The petitjongsi' "~r¢13 1ri'd Qf whatever amount that k1a$~b€en_ A¥"j-3('3(§)'V"i:.F'"i:*:";'.i'€Ci' --f:'om ' 3d/+1 Iudgéf