Karnataka High Court
Sri. K.N. Swamy vs The Secretary on 2 December, 2021
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.10066 OF 2020(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K N SWAMY,
S/O LATE T K KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
SECRETARY.
BESIDE UDYOGA BHAVAN,
OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFFICE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
IX FLOOR, DR. VISVESVARAIAH TOWER,
DR. AMBEKDAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
5. M.D.KANTARAJ,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
2
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
GOVARDHAN MOTORS,
SHOP NO.3, JOSEPH COMPLEX,
P B ROAD,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 598.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B K KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1,R3, R4;
SRI. RAJASHEKAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED OF THE R-2 DATED 06.01.2020
MARKED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO THE CONSEQUENTIAL
LETTER ISSUED BY THE R-1 ADDRESSED TO THE
DIRECTORS OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER DATED 03.08.2020 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-
H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner - the Public Information Officer belonging to the third respondent, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the orders dated 06.01.2020 made by the second respondent - State Information Commission at Annexure-G and the Letter dated 03.08.2020 issued by the first respondent at Annexure-H whereby a direction for conducting disciplinary enquiry against him has been issued.
2. The operative portion of the order in the vernacular reads as under:
"CzÀgÀAvÉ CAiÉÆÃUÀªÀÅ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»w, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ËgÀ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼À 3 C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1964 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.01.2015gÀ »A¢£À wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀiÁUÀzÉ EgÀĪÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C¢üPÁgÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ §UÉV£À ªÀiÁ»wAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ 6(1) Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:16.03.2019, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀæZÀ°vÀ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1964 gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C¢üPÁgÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀ¼ÉÀAiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£Éßà MzÀV¹. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¢PÀÄÌ vÀ¦à¸À®Ä ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀÅ UÀA©üÃgÀªÁV ¥ÀjUÀt¹, E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ F jÃwAiÀÄ ¢PÀÄÌ vÀ¦à¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀiÁzÀ ²æà ¸Áé«Ä, ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, AiÉÆÃd£Á ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, f¯Áè £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÉÆñÀ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è£À ªÀiÁ»wUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1964 gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C¢üPÁgÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ §UÉV£À ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀÅ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹. G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀægÀ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «¯ÉêÁj ªÀiÁrzÉ."
3. After service of notice, the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 are represented by the learned AGA and the second respondent - Information Commission is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel; both the AGA & Panel Counsel oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence for the following reasons: 4
a) The petitioner in terms of subject direction has already furnished the requisite information to the citizen concerned albeit with some delay, is not in dispute; the second respondent Commission has power to make the recommendation of the kind, emanates from the text of Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is true;
however, in a catena of decisions the Apex Court has observed that the existence of power is one thing and its exercise is another; mere existence of power itself cannot be a justification for it's exercise.
b) Section 22(2) of the Act is couched in a peculiar language so that this power is not abused, such a power apparently having abuse potential; Parliament in it's wisdom has indicated the ground on which such power can be exercised by employing the expression "without any reasonable cause and persistently"; Mr. Nagarajappa learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is right in pointing out that there is a "Twin Test" namely absence of reasonable cause and persistent remiss which needs to be satisfied for making the recommendation for holding a disciplinary inquiry; this having not been satisfied, the recommendation in question could not have been made. 5
(c) After all, holding of a disciplinary inquiry against a public servant is a serious matter and it can not be casually ordered; public servants need adequate protection where their wrong action or inaction is not pregnant with malafide culpable negligence; despite the vehement submission of panel counsel no such thing is shown prima facie.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders at Annexure G & H. Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv