Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. N. Dhotrad S/O Ningappa vs The Board Of Directors / on 15 June, 2023
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 60223 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 60223 OF 2011 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. N. DHOTRAD S/O NINGAPPA,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
W/AT. OFFICE OF ASST. DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA LAND ARMY CORPORATION LTD., GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B SHARANABASAVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, BANNGALORE-1,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location: KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
S High Court
of Karnataka, CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, BANGALORE-1.
HARIHAR Dharwad
Date: ... RESPONDENTS
2023.06.20 (BY SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
16:11:36
+0530
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 07/11/2007 MADE IN NO. Kabhusena/Aadalith/CR-
396/2007-2008(EV) PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS
BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW EQUITY
AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-J) & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 60223 of 2011
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was serving the second respondent as a Assistant Task Force Commander has filed the instant writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction, quashing the order dated 07-11-
2007 made in No. Kabhusena/ Aadalitha/ CR-396/ 2007- 2008 (EV) passed by the second respondent as being arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to law equity and justice. (Annexure-J).
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction, quashing the order dated 02-04- 2008 made in No. Kabhusena/ Aadalitha/ CR-8/ 2008- 2009 (EV) passed by the first respondent insofar as reinstating the petitioner to the service as a fresh candidate and also for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,68,000/- is being arbitrary erroneous and contrary to law equity and justice. (Annexure-L).
(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction, quashing the endorsement dated 2/4-11-2009 made in No. KRIDL/ Aadalitha/ CR 08/ 2009-10 issued by second respondent as being arbitrary and erroneous and contrary to law equity and justice. (Annexure-N).
-3-WP No. 60223 of 2011
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondent corporation to place the petitioner to his original post i.e., Assistant Task Force Command (ATFC) as regular candidate with continuity of service with all other consequential service benefits including promotional avenues etc. to release the withheld increments pursuant to the earlier order dated 29- 03-2000 and also to repay the deducted salary of Rs. 3500/- in the month of October 2006 with 18% interest from the date of deduction till realization in favour of petitioner in the interest of justice and equity
(v) To hold that entire enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner are null and void, since the charges framed against the petitioner are false and frivolous therefore a direction please be issued against the respondent corporation to reimburse the entire amount recovered from petitioner i.e., Rs. 2,68,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of recovery till reimbursement in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
-4-WP No. 60223 of 2011
3. On the allegation of misappropriation, a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer had filed a report stating that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter had passed an order dated 29.03.2000 directing recovery of an amount of Rs.4,72,392-53 from the salary of the petitioner with interest at 12% p.a. from 25.08.1996 to 29.02.2000 and also had imposed a penalty of withholding three increments with cumulative effect. The said order of punishment dated 29.03.2000 was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the first respondent- Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No.1134/2002, which was allowed by this Court on 19.07.2006 and the enquiry proceedings from the stage of appointment of Enquiry Officer was quashed and the matter was remitted to the respondent-Corporation for fresh disposal in accordance with law by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer. -5- WP No. 60223 of 2011
4. Thereafter, fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed by the respondent-Corporation and in the said proceedings, the Enquiry Officer had once again filed a report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner was proved and based on the said report, punishment order dated 07.11.2007 was issued to the petitioner dismissing him from service and also directing recovery of an amount of Rs.2,68,965/-. The said order was questioned by the petitioner before the first respondent-Appellate Authority on the ground that the punishment imposed on him was harsh and disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. The appeal was partly allowed and the order of punishment dated 07.11.2007 was modified and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service as a fresh candidate by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. The said order dated 02.04.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority was questioned by the petitioner by filing a review petition and the same was dismissed. It is -6- WP No. 60223 of 2011 under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the nature of allegations made and considering the fact that recovery of the amount has already been made, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is harsh and disproportionate. He submits that though the modified order states that only two annual increments of the petitioner will be withheld with cumulative effect, the respondent-Corporation has withheld totally five annual increments, which is inclusive of three annual increments as per the earlier order of punishment, which was set aside by this Court in W.P. No.1134/2002. He submits that the petitioner has now retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and his retirement benefits have not been settled by the Corporation till date.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the respondent- -7- WP No. 60223 of 2011 corporation is bound by the modified punishment order at Annexure-L, dated 02.04.2008, passed by the second respondent-Appellate Authority. He submits that in the event the respondent-Corporation has withheld more than two annual increments with cumulative effect, the same shall be reconsidered by the respondent-Corporation. He also submits that if the petitioner files an appropriate representation before the second respondent giving all the particulars of the withheld increments, over and above the punishment imposed in the modified order at Annexure-L, dated 02.04.2008, the same will be considered by the respondent-Corporation in accordance with law. He also submits that even the retirement benefits will be paid to the petitioner, if it is already not settled in compliance of the order at Annexure-L.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides.
8. The order of punishment dated 07.11.2007 was challenged by the petitioner only on the ground that the -8- WP No. 60223 of 2011 same was harsh and disproportionate to the charges framed against him. Considering the same, the first respondent-Appellate Authority has modified the punishment by order at Annexure-L, dated 02.04.2008 and directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. Undisputedly, the petitioner was reinstated into service pursuant to the order at Annexure- L, dated 02.04.2008. Having regard to the seriousness of the charges made against the petitioner, I am of the view that the modified punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be harsh or shockingly disproportionate to the charges, therefore there is no scope for interference by this Court as against the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
9. If the petitioner has a grievance that the Corporation has withheld more than two annual increments though the modified order provides for withholding only two annual increments, the petitioner is -9- WP No. 60223 of 2011 at liberty to give a representation to the respondent- Corporation giving all particulars of the increments, which have been withheld by the respondent-Corporation over and above the two annual increments as directed in the order at Annexure-L, dated 02.04.2008. The petitioner is also at liberty to make a representation to the respondent-Corporation regarding the settlement of his retirement benefits and if such a representations are made, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER The writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit representation regarding his grievance of withholding annual increments, which is over and above the two annual increments with cumulative effect as ordered by the Appellate Authority on 02.04.2008, vide Annexure-L and the petitioner
- 10 -WP No. 60223 of 2011
shall also put forward his grievances regarding non-settling of his retirement benefits in its entirety. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation shall consider and pass orders on the same as expeditiously as possible, but not later than the period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32