Karnataka High Court
Shri Harish V vs The Registrar General on 23 December, 2021
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
W.P No.862/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.862 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN :
SHRI. HARISH V
S/O LATE A.P. VIJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SHERISTEDAR
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC COURT, HONNALI
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217
R/AT ANAGHA NILAYA, AGRAHARA
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
HONNALI
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND :
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
DAVANAGERE
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
W.P No.862/2021
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING
TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.2.2019 PASSED IN
DE.NO.1/2018 (ANNEXURE-L) BY THE R-2 AND THE ORDER DATED
20.05.2020 PASSED IN APPEAL COMMUNICATED ON 08.06.2020
PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND AFTER PERUSAL SET
ASIDE THE SAME IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 10.12.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner has challenged the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority1 withholding one increment with cumulative effect and its confirmation by the Appellate Authority2.
2. Heard Shri. Vijaya Kumar, learned Advocate for petitioner and Shri. M.A. Subramani, learned Advocate for respondents
3. Brief facts of the case are, petitioner was working as Bench Clerk in the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere between September 2, 2015 and June 1 Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere 2 High Court of Karnataka W.P No.862/2021 3 25, 2016. A cheque bearing No.057965 drawn on Bapuji Co-operative Bank, Davangere Branch for Rs.2,60,000/- was found missing from the records in C.C. No.791/2014. A charge sheet was issued against petitioner and the pending clerk Shri. T.R. Hemanth Kumar, FDA. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the charge was held proved. The disciplinary authority, by his order dated February 15, 2019 has imposed a penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal vide order dated May 20, 2020.
4. Shri. Vijaya Kumar, for petitioner submitted that the criminal case, C.C. No. 791/2014 came up before the Court on May 25, 2016 and plea was recorded. On that day, the cheque in question was available in the file. Subsequently, the case was posted for evidence on June 23, 2016 and on several other dates. On November 19, 2016 it was noticed that the cheque was missing in the file. The pending clerk was also transferred from Davangere in June W.P No.862/2021 4 2016. While handing over the charge he has made a note that the cheque was missing.
5. In substance, learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that the cheque was missing from the file after his transfer. Therefore, the enquiry report and the disciplinary action against him are unsustainable in law.
6. Shri. Subramani, for respondents submitted that D.W.3 and D.W.4 have clearly stated that the cheque was missing as on May 25, 2016. He submitted that the defence witnesses have testified that the cheque was missing when both delinquent officials were on duty and the enquiry officer has rightly held that the charge was proved. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the penalty order or the Appellate Order. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissing this writ petition.
7. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
W.P No.862/20215
8. On behalf of the delinquent officials, four witnesses have been examined. D.W.1 is the petitioner, D.W.2 is the other delinquent official, D.W.3 is the Advocate for the accused in C.C. No.791/2014 and D.W.4 is an employee in the Court. D.W.3 has stated that he had perused the records on the day when the case was posted for recording the plea and the cheque was not found. He immediately informed both delinquent officials. D.W.4, has stated that petitioner had informed the second delinquent official in the evening of May 25, 2016 that the cheque was not found in the file. She had heard them talking that the said information was brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer. Thus, the deposition of defence witnesses is that the cheque was missing on the date when the case was listed for recording the plea. Based on the testimony of defence witnesses and other material on record, the enquiry officer has held that the charge has been proved.
9. The Disciplinary Authority has recorded cogent reasons and imposed the penalty on both delinquent W.P No.862/2021 6 officials. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.
10. It is settled that in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope of interference is very limited. No exceptional grounds such as violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction were urged.
11. In view of the above, there is no merit in the said petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS