Shri N.Narasappa vs State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2020

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri N.Narasappa vs State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2020

Bench: P.B. Bajanthri

                                1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

 DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI


       WRIT PETITION NO.15202/2015(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHRI N. NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
SON OF (LATE) SANNANARASAPPA,
PENSIONER, NO.84B, 60FT ROAD,
PAPAREDDYPALYA, GEOLOGY EXTENSION,
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 072.                     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R.G. KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
       VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE
       BENGALURU - 560 001

2.     THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
       COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
       VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE,
       BENGALURU - 560 001

3.     THE DIRECTOR, MINES & GEOLOGY,
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
       KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
       BENGALURU - 560 001          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T.P. SRINIVASA, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
                            2




DIRECT THE R-3 TO INTITATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND
/ OR RECOVERY ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED UNDER GOVT.
ORDER DATED 23.9.2014 VIDE ANN-L AND ETC.,

     THIS   PETITION  COMING    ON  FOR  FURTHER
ARGUMENTS PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-


                       ORDER

In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of Annexure-L dated 23.09.2014 by which State Government directed the third respondent-The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Bengaluru to initiate proceedings under Conduct of Government Litigation Rules, 1985 in respect of alleged loss caused by the petitioner to the third respondent-Department. The petitioner is a retired Senior Geologist in the Department of Mines and Geology. In respect of illegal mining, Lokayukta submitted second report where certain allegations were leveled against the petitioner. The allegations relates back to four years old as on the date of Annexure-L. The same has been taken note of but the 3 respondents were not in a position to initiate disciplinary proceedings as there is a Bar under the Rule 214(2)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958. Consequently, the State Government has resorted to take action for recovery of alleged loss caused by the petitioner to the third respondent- Department in taking action in terms of Conduct of Government Litigation Rules, 1985. Prima facie petitioner is a retired Senior Geologist in the Department of Mines and Geology. He was a Government Servant. The alleged allegations stated in Annexure-L dated 23.09.2014 is during the course of petitioner discharging the duties of post held by him which touches the service conditions. The service conditions by a Government servant which is required to be agitated is only before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal even if a Government servant has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service and further if any action is taken by the 4 third respondent-department he has a remedy before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.

2. The Apex Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and this Court in the case of Sri.Shivaprasad Biradar vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and others in W.A.No.200715/2018 (S-DE) and B.Suresh Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2002(5) KLJ 202 (DB) read with Apex Court decision in the case of Rajeev Kumar and another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others reported in (2010) 4 SCC 554 (paragraphs 13 to 16). In the case of Sri.B.Suresh Vs. State of Karnataka and others. Paragraphs 8 and 9 held as under:-

"8. We are fortified in this view by decision in Piar Chand v. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, where a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court considered an identical question and held that service under the Public Service Commission is a 'Civil Service' of the State and members of its staff are holding civil posts under the State. The following observations are relevant:

"The State, referred to in Article 323A and Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act cannot be, equated with the Government; the Government being only a limb of the State. It is true that the Public Service Commission is an independent body established under Article 315 of the Constitution..... The functions of the Public Service Commission are enumerated in Article 320 of the Constitution. The Public Service Commission though independent of the Government is also an organ of the State machinery and service under the State Public Service Commission is part of the Civil Service of the State".

9. We therefore, direct that these two petitions be transferred to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law."

3. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, the present petition be transmitted to Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Thus, petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to entertain the present case against Annexure-L. If Annexure-L dated 23.09.2014 is implemented which is in respect of petitioner discharging the duties while he was in service and alleged to have caused loss to the third respondent- department. Therefore, remedy available to the 6 petitioner in respect of challenge to Annexure-L is only Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Thus, writ petition is not maintainable.

4. Registry is hereby directed to transmit the writ papers to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is requested to re-number this writ petition into application and make all necessary endeavour to decide the petitioner's application within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE KPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court