Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Kumar S Karning S/O Lt Shankar ... on 12 October, 2012
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA
WP NO. 31036/2009 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY AND PRL. SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-1
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI M.C., AGA)
AND
1. SRI KUMAR S. KARNING,
S/O. LATE SHANKAR KARNING
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE),
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE
2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-01, CHIEF ENGINEER,
COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING,
(NORTH), DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.A. BELLIAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2008
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.3517/2008.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, N.K. PATIL, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 24.10.2008 passed in Application No.3517/2008 C/w. Application No.3637/2008 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore Vide Annexure-A, wherein, the applicant had prayed to direct petitioner to consider the representation and documents submitted by him before taking any decision or before issuing any order on the basis of the recommendation sent by the 2nd respondent. The said application has been disposed of, with a direction to consider the representation submitted by the applicant and pass final orders 3 thereon, within four weeks, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order; all contentions urged by the parties were left open and till then, interim order of status quo shall enure to the benefit of the Applicant.
2. On the allegation that the Applicant/first respondent herein, has amassed more wealth than what he has disclosed in his Annual Returns of Assets and Liabilities, the Lokayukta Police conducted a search on the house of the Applicant and is stated to have found that, the Applicant has acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Lokayukta Police have filed criminal case against the Applicant under the Provisions of Corruption Act and have also sent reports to the 2nd respondent-Additional Director General of Police in that regard, who in turn, has reported the matter to the Government and has recommended for his suspension. The 1st respondent- applicant has filed detailed representation to the recommendation of the Additional Director General of Police. The Government has not yet taken any decision 4 on the report of the Additional Director General of Police. Apprehending that the Government may place the Applicant under suspension, he has filed the Application praying for a direction to the Government to consider the representation submitted by him before taking any decision in the matter. He has also prayed for quashing the recommendations made by the Additionally Director General of Police. The said matter has come up before the Tribunal for consideration. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel appearing for first respondent, learned counsel for second respondent and the learned counsel for petitioner herein declined to grant the prayer sought and so far as prayer seeking to consider his representation submitted it observed that Clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act imposes an obligation on the competent authority to act on the representation submitted by a Government Servant and pass orders within six months. In the instant case, the period of six months has not expired. Apprehending that the Government may place the 5 Applicant under suspension without considering the said representation, he has approached the Tribunal and also he produced copy of the representation and it has been served on the concerned authority. Therefore, the Tribunal has opined, in the light of the obligation imposed under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, all that could be done at that time in the Application was to dispose of the Application with a direction to the competent authority to consider the representation submitted by the Applicant and pass final orders within four weeks. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that, the Tribunal is not justified in issuing a direction to the petitioner, in the Application by the 1st respondent herein, praying to direct the petitioner to consider the representation and the same cannot be sustained an 6 the final decision is yet to be taken by the competent authority/petitioner. Question of seeking direction to consider the representation and pass final orders within four weeks and seeking interim order of status quo till the final orders cannot be sustained. The direction to consider the representation in accordance with law and further direction to maintain status-quo till taking decision may not be justifiable. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent interalia contended that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is after due consideration of relevant material available on file including Clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act and that the direction issued to the petitioner/competent authority to consider his representation is in accordance with law and interference by this Court is not called for. 7
5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, we do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal. Only a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider the representation submitted by the 1st respondent as envisaged under Clause (b) of Sub- Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks. In the said direction, we do not find any error for the reason that on the basis of the report submitted by the Additional Director General of Police to the Government-Competent Authority to take action, he has submitted his representation and the same is not in dispute. If that is the case, there is no impediment for the petitioner/competent authority to consider the representation as envisaged in Clause (b) Sub Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, in accordance with law. The said reasoning given by the Tribunal is just and 8 proper and we do not find any arbitrariness so on to call for interference. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Further, the competent authority shall consider the representation filed by the first respondent in compliance of the direction issued by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal on 24.10.2008 passed in Application No.3517/2008 an expeditiously as possible within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already considered and disposed off.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*