Karnataka High Court
Smt.Supriya Patil vs The Regional Commissioner & Anr on 31 January, 2018
Author: B Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B. Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA
W.P.No.200042/2018 (S-RES)
Between:
Smt. Supriya Patil D/o Suresh Patil
Age: 26 years, Village Accountant
Bhoomikendra, Chitaguppa
On Deputation at Bhoomikendra
Vijayapura, Dist. Vijayapura - 586101
... Petitioner
(By Sri Huleppa Heroor, Advocate)
And:
1. The Regional Commissioner
Kalaburagi Region
Kalaburagi - 585102
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Bidar, Bidar District
Bidar - 584101
...Respondents
(By Sri R.V. Nadagouda, AAG)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
order dated 30.11.2017 in No.Kandaya/Sibbandi/Samanya/
CR-76/2016-17 in file No.DC-BDR-23013/4/2016-BDR-
2
DENQ passed by the second respondent which is placed at
Annexure-Q, pending disposal of this writ petition and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 in No.Kandaya/Sibbandi/Samanya/ CR-76/2016-17 in file No.DC-BDR-23013/4/2016- BDR-DENQ at Annexure-Q and to direct the first respondent-Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi Region, Kalaburagi, to dispose of the appeal pending before him in File No.DC-BDR-23013/4/2016-BDR-DENQ.
2. Heard Sri Huleppa Heroor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.V.Nadagouda, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3
3. Perused the writ petition and Annexures produced along with the writ petition.
4. Sri Huleppa Heroor, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner is a Government Employee and aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, ordering for his compulsory retirement from service challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before the first respondent and it is pending.
5. Grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not been disposing of his appeal in one way or the other therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be allowed by issuing necessary direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.
4
6. Sri R.V.Nadagouda, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the first respondent has already disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that he could not have prosecuted his appeal through a Legal Practitioner or an Agent as per Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and he has placed a copy of the said order along with a memo after serving a copy of the same on the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a government servant. The second respondent by impugned order at Annexure-Q ordered for his compulsory retirement from service for the reasons stated in the said order. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the appeal on the ground that it cannot be prosecuted through a 5 Legal Practitioner or an Agent by referring to Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The petitioner admittedly a government employee, if he is aggrieved by the order at Annexure-Q passed by the second respondent or aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent- Regional Commissioner, he has to redress his grievance by preferring an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, as per the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable before this Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*