Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Dr Malini vs Sri Subhash Chandra on 9 January, 2018

Bench: B.S.Patil, Aravind Kumar

                                           CCC.1243/2017
                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

                         PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

                             &

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

                CCC.No.1243/2017 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN

Dr.MALINI,
W/O Dr. B.K.MURLIDHAR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES,
MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 68.             ... COMPLAINANT

(By Sri M.T.NANAIAH, SR.COUNSEL A/W
 Sri VISHNU HEGDE, ADV.)

AND

1.    SRI SUBASH CHANDRA
      STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
      HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE SERVICES),
      VIDHANA SOUDHA,
      BANGALORE 560 001.

2.    SRI R.K.DATTA
      DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
      NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
      BANGALORE 560 001.

3.    SRI V.G.NAYAK
      DIRECTOR,
      FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY,
      MADIVALA, BANGALORE 560 068.    ... ACCUSED


(By Sri D.NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R1-R3)
                                                 CCC.1243/2017
                                2



     THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT BE PLEASED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE OF
ACT OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS FOR THE WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE    OF   THE  ORDER   DATED   15/04/13  IN
W.P.NO.23406/2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
PUNISH THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE OFFENCE COMMITTED
UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT.

      THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL,
J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents. Counter affidavit filed by him is taken on record.

2. Complainant is before this Court in this contempt petition filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging violation of the order dated 15.04.2013 passed in W.P.No.23406/2010.

3. Complainant was working on contract basis as Assistant Director of Forensic Psychology from July, 1999 and her services were regularised on 30.06.2007. She was sought to be terminated from her service vide order dated 28.02.2009. Indeed, the said order was camouflaged as discharge simpliciter. As the complainant was CCC.1243/2017 3 unsuccessful in her challenge to the order of termination before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, W.P.No.23406/2010 was filed before this Court challenging the order of the KAT and also the order terminating her from service.

4. This Court, after hearing all the parties and having come to the conclusion that the order dated 28.02.2009 terminating the services of the complainant was not a discharge simpliciter, but was stigmatic and was indeed an order removing her from service, set aside the said order. Operative portion of the order passed in the writ petition reads as under:

"The writ petition is allowed.

(a) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside.

(b) The impugned order of discharge simpliciter (A1) dated 28.02.2009 is hereby quashed.

(c) The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits.

(d) No costs."

5. Thereafter, complainant was reinstated into service on 31.10.2013 as is asserted in the counter affidavit filed. However, as the other consequential reliefs namely salary and allowances for the period during which she was out of service on account of the order of termination had not been paid, a contempt petition was filed in CCC.No.595/2014 and during the pendency of the said contempt petition, the authorities complied with the direction regarding payment of arrears of salary. Based on the same, contempt proceeding was closed.

6. The present contempt petition is filed alleging that although this Court has issued a direction directing respondent - authorities to grant all consequential benefits making it clear that complainant was entitled for such consequential benefits, the authorities have not treated her as an official who had completed her probationary period. Complainant alleges that she is denied all promotional avenues. It is her grievance that from the date of regularisation in the year 2007 though she has completed CCC.1243/2017 5 nearly 11 years of service, she is still sought to be treated as a probationer which is against the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition. In the light of this grievance made, we have heard the learned counsel for both parties.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed statement of objections by way of counter affidavit. It is asserted therein that no direction has been issued by this Court to treat the complainant as a person who had completed her probationary period or to declare her probationary period. It is further asserted that Government has thought it fit to extend the period of probation of the complainant having due regard to the record of her service.

8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, we find that direction issued in the writ petition have nothing to do with declaration of probationary period of the complainant. Consequential benefits to which the complainant was held entitled as a result of quashing the CCC.1243/2017 6 order of termination dated 28.02.2009 cannot be interpreted to include declaration of probationary period of the complainant. That was not the subject matter of the writ petition. Subject matter of the writ petition was alleged illegal termination dated 28.02.2009. Once the termination order is set aside, complainant - writ petitioner was required to be reinstated into service in the capacity in which she was serving at the time of her termination along with consequential benefits which would mean pecuniary benefits and continuity of service. There is no grievance that these consequential benefits have not been given to her. Indeed, financial benefits have been paid. In such circumstances, though it appears that complainant has been continued as probationer for a considerable length of time, as the said action of the respondents cannot be termed as violation of this Court order, we do not want to express anything regarding the conduct of authorities in that regard. Suffice to observe that there is no violation of the direction issued in the writ petition vide order dated 15.04.2013.

7

9. Hence, this contempt proceeding is dropped. Liberty is reserved to the complainant to initiate appropriate action with regard to her grievance for continuing her probationary period indefinitely.

Application - I.A.1/2018 is disposed of as having become unnecessary in view of the above order passed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE PKS