Nanjunda S/O Puttaiah vs Sri Chamarajendra Zoolological Garden on 13 March, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Nanjunda S/O Puttaiah vs Sri Chamarajendra Zoolological Garden on 13 March, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2009 LAB. I. C. 2906, 2009 (4) AIR KANT HCR 412, (2009) 6 KANT LJ 26, 2009 (3) KCCR SN 94 (KAR)

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

 

:9 §§">~
,2 A

_' ;,. gs

 

*°«'<s.m.,.-.,.I-,-..w---"'

IN WRIT PETITIOMNQ.  

 

IN ms HIGH COURT or KARKATAKA A1' nAIe{¢§A£4t3:§ji:iI+I  

DATED THIS THE 1313 DAY OF MARCH»  Q"  

BEFORE 

ms H0!!rgLE MR. Jusfr-ms s;';a_I§'DuL   V

WRIT PETITION NO. 2006Is§--_i?I::'SI 
Clw. mp. :~Io.1o57--:r.Im.. (s~I_:§;--- 

BETWEEN:

1.

R/a.ANuI.223o;~::§#_'c1g§sa' 

Krishuagagaﬁ A V 
 Myisom "

   ..... -4 V

S} 0} Nsuagcgouda

 V' " Agcv:v._4'-'~9 ,V}=r;a'rs, Attend er
. -.'_R/ 3%.. 1'49.;'§-$9,v"La1itac{Iipura
I Mysore 1-3

Iaagamjg
S)' o; ...-Chaluvcgouda

n 'T Age: 38 years

V = .Ria. 519.4917

Marazgadcvi Temple Road
Kamatageri Najarbach
Mysore

Age; 48--y¢aiE;"éAatt:ﬁd«Efv«--.. I M



 

~a

4. Javanappa

S/0. Maralingaish
Age: 40 years

Jr. Attends:

R/a, 26, IV Cross
4"! Main, Jayanagar V,   "    
Mysore   "  PETITEONERS

(By Sri. M. C. Pyati, Adv.)V__

AND: V V V V V
1. Szti. Chanmmjéndfa  
By its Exﬁzcuigijm Dimcto;   .

zttrigudae, "e!'3%'~€':<i*re--~.L > "  

2. The"   _
Sifi. Chama3f3j§ﬁdra.Z69}<;gicaI Gardens
Ittitgegude  V, _  ., _  ... RESPONDENTS

(By M] s. VAs~aQr':iaté:3," for R- 1 R-2 scjcvevcl? unztpxjcsentcézl) ;I'hi:§"Wri4iV"i-3c §iition is ﬁled under Articics 226 61; 227 of the--Co:1stituti.:a::TI=of India, praying to quash the notice éated L 06.Oi.,420Q6~a1V:1i.=i 26.06.2006 vidc Am1~M, N1 and N2 and cm. fay k -Dixit, Adv.) _fAN1:.=§ " " " Exmuﬁvé Director - cum --

Bisciplizgary Authority _ fihamamjendm Zoological Garcicns 'Mysigyre -10 RESPONDENT ' MP. Gccthadevi, Adv.) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1057712006 BETWEE:

1. Mr. Nanjunda S/0. Puttaiah Age: 48 years, Attcndcr R/ex. No.130, Bemur Road I Ycmganahaﬂi, Mysore

2. Mr. Swamy S/0. Nan-mcgouda _ . :

Age: 50 yt:ars:,*{'}cc: ':\tt;1ndci*.__ 12/ 51. 310.359.' La1itad:ipa;ra;" " ..

Mysore -1.9.  ~  _    A'

3. Mr.  52;, _, " V  '
S/Q."Cha}1i.V'c

Ag¢g:vv33__3:¢.ar$vVV_._ v% . . Occ: J u_n._io1' All't:1id.;:i~ ,-~ R/a. Na.%497/2*. " ' .. ' Maragadevi T-2-,m'p1eA K:;miatagc1'i,"'Nazarbad

---------- PETITIONERS 10 petitioners have challenged the said notices on _ that since the departznemtal etlquityg W proceedings launched against these ﬁacts, the depaxtulenfal pmceedipgs "to ; conclusion of the criminal case.

8. The object of enquixy is to ﬁnd out any miscomluct or deﬁnqueecy. pmceedings is puritg} public service' The donlinant purpose 5:" is to achieve the pmtection of the. 'V Tyeiefoxe, ﬁle fields of operation ef the two V. 'diﬁemnt and independent. The high standard of pmof for accused. In discipﬁnaxy proceedings, of evidence and high standard of proof __:eit;.t required for ﬁnding a person. guilty. it is if there is pxeponderance of probability of 3 .

':2.

11 delinquenfs guilt. There is no cc-nsﬁtutinnal, stamtoly or legal bar to conduct a departmental enquiry disposal of a criminal case. It is only when ~ acquittcci honomably and complcte1_g'Vc§xon¢ratet2I.:: ':'he. " "

charges, it would not be expé<;'!ieI11t ftd departmental enquiry on the V'3VI3T._.$8II1V'E'-C.]E1a1fgC1§:!C }fT: vg,rp}.1£:dsV% on evidence.

9. In 2.1». txkfmiia mm 1964 BC 1'87], the trial of a the criminal gémﬁﬁon, discipiinary the public servant so convk:ted#'A'e§;en Vin' proceedings may follow where acqujtféii 211%: honomahle. Similar View " 'I;aAs "£1f§s'.§;II'€x§?V-3ASiVIf'i'!':'"1"' by the Supreme Court in CITY OF NAGPUR V8. RAMACHAHDRA G. §u.§'n'1a.K_'(Ai§;A.i9s4 so 626).

9 3

f'

1. 14 nature which involves complicated questions of = law and fact, it would be desirable to " 'V' departmental proceedings tilt the co11c11;mi,o_ 1:1VV.V<V:if.j.:' ._ the criminal case.

iii) Whether the _ of :1 ei3ange1 a 2 ' cum' ma!' case is grave S questions of fact a1;d law ~im'm_1ved.

case, will depend n:--;;L1,iIt*.. 'ﬁfence, the nature of the case the employee en. ::ev§:ie11ee material or as reﬂccteéi iv} T31eAvvf:ai;C:§1;%§m.eﬁ%Eis;i:1ed'at (ii) and (iii; above canﬁot be isolation" to stay the depaltﬁentalpmetfediziwgs but due regard has to vﬁven {<3 that the departmental « _ _ cannot be unduly delayed. : ?_f 'C'n . 'mm 31 case does not Pmceed or its "-ciispirml' is being unduly delayed, the depaﬁznental proceedings, even if they were I on account of the pendency of the case, can be resumed an proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so Ra

16 of stay of dcpuartnental proceedings. In _ UPALOKAYllK'ﬂ-IA Am) ornsns am a7 J Division Bench of this Court was c<ii1§i:iIi°:I'§:3.'g_t13-.1:

departmental Pmcetdings were » ~_ of 'B' report by a leaned 'V V charges. This Court sfzhiie theiaeéision in Paul Authcngfs casev ._ﬂ1at whens the criminal Court ground or where the foi' xgéniiivofiinuﬁcient evidence or non or on account of mateﬁa1vWi'm«ri.$53nn 'nrﬂfon account of conﬂict in evidencn-v-AQr'--<):n V the prosecution had failed to estabiish " r;aé;e_ naasonahic doubt, such an is ndii. ciconeration of the accused by an In such owes, the management is at the enquiry or initiate an enquiry on _ . _ _' i ' fpﬂmwing nztasons:

than vs.niiige'iv.chargcs, even aﬁer thz acquittal for the V _ " I. Firstly, canpkayer is not a party to the criminal prosecution. The pmcecdings in the Criminal court are by the State and the empioycr has no role to laying such E '-4 '£8 effectuate efficiency in adminisizration and _ ? " peIfo1'm.a11ce'/production.

3. neither thc.:p1e.€1 Aof.'_"doi;u ' jeopardy based on Article V'».._20{3}..:' of, iiie Constitution and Sec-ﬁon of not-"--ih.¢ 1 é bar based on ' pn'2v_'icip1t:i._ Resjudicatal estoppel, has 'to._t11e.:§ initiation of depaiii.i§ii_ta1--'_ on the same charges," T ' " -.

The Court has "is::&on}y when the employee is in a complete exonemﬁoo the charges, then in defexence "Court, the employer should not iniﬁate an of discipﬁnazy proceedings on Sm c.--h"arge:s such enquiry is pending, drop s1'i~:_1iV * in .irik1sHmxALi TEA ESTATE vs. AK!-III.

" '3':iAsa11i*.e.'1' cam nwzvoon swan AND momma SGC 200]. the Apex Court aﬁer considering the in Paul Anthony': Ease (supra), has held that the R 19 approach and the objectives of criminal proceedings apd disciplinary pmceedings are altogether distinct diﬂ"ereI1t. It has been held as under: V "Learned Counsel for the Iespondents h V to the above contention nelied 01; a 4' 2 this Court in the case of Opt. VV 3 In our opinion, even that cese_\z.rQu1d.'nQt the respondents herein becattee'-if; the the evidence led in easée .es--3veI1 ae the domestic enquixy 'each and the criminal cfatsz-;_ on the safety sates C-'ai}1e to the cenctusidh 011 the very ' t}1e'''vd.0'h1esﬁc enquiry WOBHA be rather oppressive. It is to he the ﬁnding by the 'i'11"b1_1:1.1al aegis. at in an ex parte pztreeeriings. In the case in hand, 'A ' héﬁe t.__h___at hefom the Labour Cgurt the the mangement wags diﬁemnt " 15': bv the prosecution in me cxixninal V ggge end' the Igaterials before the crimgnal cou;:'__t .. ﬂ.I}.d the Labour Court were egtimlv different. .' "fherefoze, it was open. to the Labour Court to 20 have come to an independent conclusion de1;b'1*e--f r. A4 the ﬁnding of the C-riIm'11a1 Court' (emphasis supplied Vbytmel

13. Coming to the factégf _ tgasei _f:3heVA disciplinary pmcee-dings were 2 ﬁne': t_2:1.1vV1.2(}O5. Simultaneousiy, been launched against the set of facts. Admittedly, no qee'is,;¢n Court so far. For the departmental "the over four years. If tne peﬁﬁenem ~-- nnnomably and exonerated completely than only the departmental _ enquiry dngthe ef charges need not be continued. it the materials which may be placed. by the 1} .Q]} at " pmsecution before the d1'scip}1na1v' V authetjtty court as the case may be. Even fatal Anthanfs case (supra), if the cdminal not proceed or its disposal "E nnduky deiayed, the ___""tde;$.artmenta1 proceedings even if they are stayed on the u of the pendency of the criminal case can be Iesmned 22 " The suboztlinatc may take the 3.ssistan{:e-- A4 any other subordinate or a retired subo1i1_ina':;,€.VVL' % of the Zoo Authority ofKa1nat_aka__to préééntﬁthé' case on his behalf. l:'n_1t may not_gngagc H practitioner for the ilnic-.55, " the V' Presenting (Jfﬁccr apfmiﬁtktrj by the Authority, is a legal p1j5V§t:1i1r&on:%r1;_ "015, izhc Disciplinary Authogity 'zt'agaIti ' "ﬁle circumstances of the 'ca.scL, $9 The afoIes§3i:iv__n1IeSV'd;0 ..§§3j)§3int1I1ent of an advocate to. ﬂag the deparmental enqum H I authority may permit the dCl];Ik.?.quti:Dx.t'V;.3_§3 lega} ﬁzacﬁtioner in appropriate cases. -- * _ "

15. "'!;;"G.L.' V8. GOLLECTOR OF CUSIDH3 ¢am1 9""r'2s ac 2173;, it has been held that since ta gewant by and large has no legal ixaining and tticzecu is §g' io his livelihood, and he is not likely to be in a his case as best as should be, than in "V.appmpI'§é1t3 cases, them should be permitted legal A ~ :L:répi'ét«kf-:ntaﬁon.

.W~«-mm' 25 exercise of this discreﬂen one of the ;. A' factors is whether there is Hke11hood""-of the L" % combat being unequal entaﬂpg. a' faﬂuze of justice and a reasonable oppommity for defeﬁee by of ' the employee being --43V ' Oﬁcer who is uajeed Legal lawyer are for liberally construed and must 'Wi;1edeiier'.assists or advises Q31: Lfaete deemed to be inhﬂnftz 1a__.1egaifad'vie.ei'V'. In the last a11a13r3si_s,*i:_e beg reached on a case ije'-" eéase.: 1211:» ' ' ﬂee sifeéifienal particularities 'the »e.fex;§ii3"ements of justice of the C&1S(:",h 2 smvasmv vs. 1100 BANK um:

the Apex Court has held that Where the a}'1eg a tio1;s-- simple and not complicated, refusal of "v..assista;11c:e by an advocate will not amount to violation of Vmleéfefnatural justice.

18. In the Insult, I pass the follcrwing order:

i) w.P. No.10644/'.2006 challenging issued by the enquizy oﬁcer at Anncxuxes-M, Vv 'N23 9 is hereby dismissed.

ii) W.P.No. 10577/2006 sat Am1cxure~F dated 20.07.Q§£l§ ..gppIﬁ@ﬁéiﬁ of the petitioners to permit a:_iégjg}'pp__pracﬁﬁoncr to defend their Erﬁﬁoners are permitted to Advocate to represent them in Sd/-z Iudgé

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court