Karnataka High Court
Sri A Sathyanarayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2010
Bench: Manjula Chellur, B.S.Patil
WP 34739 /2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.»
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2o1o_ 'iv ..
PRES ENT
THE I-ION'BLE 1\/IRS.JUSTi{CE MA1\§J'ULA"_CH:F.iLitJjRx V'
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JU.S'F[CE s.s_.1a/xiii,
w.P.No.35.739 gV2oogs'----:«;AT1' " -
BETWEEN:
Sr1'A. Sathyanarayr1i1a_. - _ -
S/oAThiPanna,:" . '
Aged about 4'7:.y'e'ar_s;7.._V._';'. ' ' _«
Assistant Director; » =
Ministry oif._socia1%Jus::¢e 8:' " "
Empower!fI1ent',' D£:}hi._ '
Working on DepL1tati'on'as,'
Project Co--ordi--nato1f.'* ~ ._ 9 '
ChikaInaga1ur,_ * 4'
_ R/at 'Easwar, eod,
Cross gJaya.nagar 9"~h"BIock,
'-._Banga1ore~':3(504 U59. PETITIONER
[By.Si*i__[5.V*;:'"'s,Tfia§iaVSimha Reddy, for
' Deslxrajé & _l?' Cl;aohga1araya Reddy, Adv.)
"Sate of Karnataka.
' . 'Represented by its Secretary,
' Department of Social Weifare,
....Vikasa Soudha,
Banga1ore--0 1 .
2] The Director,
Department of Tribal Welfare,
2
3)
5}
Krishi Bhavan, 2"" Floor,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore-560 001.
The Chief Executive Officer,
Ziiia Panchayath,
Kodagu District,
Kodagu.
Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary ..
Government of India,
Ministry of Social Justice
Empowerement, ,
7th Floor, 0'
Shastri Bhavan,
New De1hi--1 10 00.1. V
The Chief Crfficeri "V.
Zilia Panchfiiyafh.
chikamaga1u.ri3ié%tr:c£.' .. "
Chii{amaga3.u1f;.
(By Sri B.
Sri S.Prakash~S_hetty"CGSC fofif R-4,
Sri L.Siddaiah fo1f_R6)_ "
BIHIHII
W? 34739 /2009
RESPONDEN TS
._ Pe'ti'tion is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constittition 'oii India praying to quash the order passed in
Appiicat.ion,__"No.~i640/2006 dated 19.08.2009 Vide Annexure-A
_ consequently allow the said application of the petitioner and
" " pgraizt consequential relief as claimed in the application etc.
it V' Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
gxla Chellur, J., made the fo1lowing:--
WP 34739/2009
ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel Sri D.V.Vijayasimha.
the petitioner as well as the Government "
B.Veerappa and the learned Couintsel---.Sri--'_: for. proposed respondent No.6.
2. The brief facts that led to f'1lingl"0fl:tiie jipplicafion bearing No.16-40/2006 befere jidniinistrative Tribunal at Bangalore (herein'after"_re:fer*red 'the Tribunal', for short}, are as;unrflpel-r':
On _._the petitioner herein, the Government of Indi:=ifco11veyed---- its no objection for absorption of the services the petifionerin the State Government as per its __1etter"d§ated. i8.1"0._V2_00l response to the letter of the State in 08.08.2001. It is not in dispute that initially .o'r-[tier :08:§'02.2002, petitioner herein was deputed as _Projec't-. Cooidiiiator in the Directorate of Integrated Tribal 04 H 0' 4.44'Dpne'Jel.opm'e-nt Project, Udupi. He was also relieved from his post parent department (Union Government) on 08.03.2002. =It._is also not in dispute that at some point of time there was * " correspondence between the State Government and the Union Government at the instance of the petitioner herein that he may WP 34739/2009 _ 4 _ be absorbed to the services of the State Government and___ even the Union Government conveyed its no objection if fhe,'State Government opts to absorb the services of the petitione'r.,'in i*?:__, . permanently. However, by letter date_d,,2 l_.10.,?.00{3i:at, Annexure-A7, the deputation of the petiticirter by' one year upto 07.03.2006 andeiurtherdit vvas ilthat before the said date, he may be absorbed: into the State Government service or that_he_ may,--_be " repatriated back to the parent department__ on Compietion ofeidourth year of deputation. G
3. At Ietter of the Union Government dated 18.io.2o0'1 - they had no objection to dispense the seivicesyof petitioner on permanent basis to the 'State t5}oveifr1n2,ent, however, the option was given to the State GoverninentpAei.ther=to absorb him on permanent basis or take the eeservices deputation. Apparently, by order dated H 4' as per AnneXure--A10, the petitioner was repatriated tofthei"parent Department, Sociai Justice and Empowerment, ___"Gentral"Government, New Delhi, with immediate effect. This at Annexure--A10 came to be challenged before the Tribunal in the year 2006 by the above said application. During WP 34739/ 2009 the pendency of the application before the Tribunal, an interim order of stay was granted. Therefore with the interventitin' interim order, the period of deputation had to be the disposal of the application before th'e"T1iburi_a1. it
4. The objection statement of the State " Goveirirnent indicate that just before the repatriation order' I.';':'§.O2i.2006 was passed, there were misappropriation against the petitioner hereinby Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Kodagujp:~i§istrict, iirifhis' 02.12.2005 & 12.05.2006. as Kodagu District.
by his 1'%,'uOVZi;.iOO6, and in the Ziila Panchayath, refer the matter to the COD.
Similarly, _V at behest of 1\V/i'r,I--I.D.Basavaraju, I\/ILA, Virajpet, a it :_jwasvi.n1adeV against the petitioner on the same subject On receipt of the proposal by the Deputy Comr:1uissionerdr:'i.V_and the Chief Executive Officer, for taking di..scip1inary*;. action against the petitioner herein, the Ciotrernment by order dated 16.07.2007 constituted an Enquiry ____"'Corrj;mittee. However, as already stated above, by virtue of the 'dinterim order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner continued to Work as Project Coordinator in Integrated Tribal Development WP 34739/2009 .,. 5 .,.
Project at Dakshina Kannada. He was also kept under suspension with effect from 16.09.2008 on accoun.t'=0f~..»_lth_e complaints-mentioned above. However, we need--*not' ~ much upon whether the allegations in the c_omp1aint:ai*eV'i'ight or wrong, as it has got nothing to do 'present lsiibjééit' matter of litigation. This was tlie'«-rnain ease Vurged1.;before3 the , * Tribunal in the application of the p(3lZVfiEl'.v(:)1'i-.':_I'.
5. According to the State..i_'th'e--.'Statep: GVove1*nment had the option from the beginning deputation or to absorb him on; V B_u"t._'there was no decision as such to the «State service on permanent basis. On the other hand_._ of Rule 50 of the Karnataka Civil Services Ruies statesv_that ordinarily the deputation should it not be.e3ite,ndedzbeyond"five years except under special orders of the "-"From the year 2002 till 07.03.2006, the l by petitioner was'VVe0:1;.i:;deputati0n after having no objection from the this'-«._.uCentral Crovernment and between this period the State ._C'c._overn'myent never made its decision to absorb him on V" ___ "permanent basis.
By virtue of the interim order of stay granted by the Tribunal, petitioner continued in the same service but for his servicehas to be rejected.
WP 34739 /2009 suspension till 19.08.2009, the date of disposal Void his application. In other words, his continuation in the'-.2Sta'te Government service as Project Coordinator from S' 19.08.2009 was only because of the""'interiir1 ofv:jsta'y.& granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, is'.A_Aciearll't1'iat Government never expressed its option to" absorb: the " S State Government as a frnatterppy_.ot:A"fac't__Arepatriated; him on 13.02.2006 to the parent regard to the above said Cadre 8: the fact that the State Governments the complaints of misappropriation?' his absorption into the State services--_ ..it'self. Therefore', the request of the petitionerppioirv absorb11:ug'~..hin1 into the State Government 7;. V Evenv.;nitf1»ey' absence of complaints of misappropriation or other it was always the option of the State 4Cz.overnn1ent«:_either to absorb him or to repatriate him to the ptpaientltiepartment. As such, the petitioner cannot grieve about thetaction of the State Government in repatriating him by its ' dated 13.02.2006 and his stay in the department of the State Government from 2006 to 2009 has nothing to do with the 'WP 34739/2009 option of the Government, but it was because of the stayprder granted by the Tribunai. Under these circumstances, -v{r'e~:.are"'of the opinion that the Tribunal has considered the m;a:ae::'y£:§'m ' angles and was justified in expressi.ng..iiS Ru petitioner cannot insist for his absorption::into the State as contended by him.
8. Viewed from any ijnable accept the contentions of the petitioners petition is dismissed.
sal-
JUDGE KR .