Karnataka High Court
Dr. B. Devanand S/O B P Obayya vs The Principal Secretary To on 8 February, 2023
-1-
WP No. 104129 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 104129 OF 2015 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. B. DEVANAND S/O B P OBAYYA
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR and HOD
DEPARTMENT OF ANESTHEOLOGY
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
BELAGAVI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOURABH A. SONDUR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
HEALTH and FAMILY8 WELFARE SERVICES
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
KATTIMANI
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH COURT OF
2. THE VIAJAYANAGARA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
Date: 2023.02.14 15:48:56
+0530
SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
BALLARI-583 103
3. SRI.F.C. GUDDAKAR
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE AND
THE ENQUIRY OFFICER,
BEHIND MINOR IRRIGATION OFFICE
RODDHA ROAD, DHARWAD-580 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI J. M. ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - THRU VC)
R3 - DELETED V/O/DTD 22.04.2015)
---
-2-
WP No. 104129 of 2015
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
A. QUASH THE INITIATION OF DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY IN
PURSUANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
DATED 25.02.2015 AT ANNEXURE-D.
B. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.02.2015 AT
ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.1, initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner herein.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was working as Professor and Head of the Department of Anesthesia in the Belagavi Institute of Medical Sciences. The petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor on 06.12.2005 and thereafter, he was promoted to the cadre of the Professor. It is further stated in the writ petition that, when the petitioner was working as a Director of the 2nd respondent-Institute, certain allegations were made against the petitioner with -3- WP No. 104129 of 2015 regard to the examination conducted for the post-graduate entrance test for the Academic Year 2011-12 and thereafter, the petitioner was temporarily deputed to Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences as its Director with effect from 02.07.2022. By letter dated 10.01.2013, the respondent -authorities have issued show-cause notice cum charge sheet alleging that the petitioner has supported for the malpractice that took place in the Institute during his tenure as Director of the Institution (Annexure-A). Pursuant to the show cause notice cum charge sheet dated 10.01.2013, the petitioner filed reply dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure-B) and the Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply made by the petitioner by letter dated 13.03.2013, dropped the proceedings against the petitioner, exonerating the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Professor and HOD and in the Department of Anesthesia at 2nd respondent- Institution. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has received a copy of the order dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-D) whereby, the respondent-Government has withdrawn the earlier order dated 13.03.2013, (Annexure-C), and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. -4- WP No. 104129 of 2015
3. I have heard Sri Sourabh A Sondur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-Government and Sri J.M. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Institution.
4. Sri Sourabh A Sondur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that by virtue of Annexure-C to the writ petition, the Government had taken a decision exonerating the petitioner from the enquiry, and thereafter, at the belated stage, issued impugned order dated 25.02.2015, produced at Annexure-D, which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. He further contended that delay in initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is incorrect which requires to be set aside in this writ petition. To support his arguments, he places reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.Mahadevan vs. MD Tamil Nadu Husing Board reported in 2005 (6) SCC 636. Accordingly, he sought to allow the writ petition.
5. On the other hand, Sri. Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for -5- WP No. 104129 of 2015 respondent-Government contended that though an order of exonerating from the charges is passed as per Annexure-C to the writ petition, the respondent-Government has taken a decision in the matter, taking into consideration the fact that no reasons are assigned by the Government while passing the order dated 13.03.2013. He also submitted that the issue involved in the present case was investigated by COD (Corps of Detectives) and therefore, he sought to sustain the impugned order passed by the Government.
6. Sri J.M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Institution argued in the similar lines of Additional Government Advocate and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent-authorities have issued imputation of charges as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. The petitioner has filed reply to the show-cause notice cum charge sheet as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. The Government had taken a decision to drop the departmental enquiry and exonerated the -6- WP No. 104129 of 2015 petitioner from the charges as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. Having taken note of the aforementioned aspects, I have carefully considered the reasons stated in the Annexure- D, which is impugned in this writ petition, whereby, the Government has withdrawn the earlier order dated 13.03.2013. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on records, that the incident alleged to have been leveled against the petitioner is of the year 2011 and based on the reply made by the petitioner, the proceedings were dropped by Government Order dated 13.03.2013, and as such, I am of the opinion that, the respondent-Government cannot be permitted to re-consider the issue at fresh at the belated stage as the order dated 13.03.2013 has reached finality, exonerating the petitioner from the charges leveled against him and it is specifically reflected in the order dated 13.03.2013 that the explanation offered by the petitioner was accepted and justifiable in nature. Therefore, initiating the 2nd enquiry again against the petitioner does not provide under the service jurisprudence. I have also noticed from the judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in P.V.Mahadeva case, (supra) where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the delay in -7- WP No. 104129 of 2015 initiating departmental enquiry at the belated stage would cause mental agony to the delinquent and therefore, in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant therein. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, writ petition deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) Order dated 25.02.2015 passed by respondent No.1, vide Annexure-D to the writ petition is set aside insofar petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29