Karnataka High Court
Basavantaray Biradar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 20 December, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9333-DB
WP No. 200463 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 200463 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVANTARAY B BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
RURAL EMPLOYMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
VIJAYPURA,
RESIDING AT BINJALBHAVI,
TALUK: SINDAGI,
DISTRICT VIJAYPURA-586128.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE)
SOMANATH
PENTAPPA MITTE
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9333-DB
WP No. 200463 of 2022
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
YADGIR-585201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T R, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 05.10.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, KALABURAGI IN
APPLICATION NO: 20419/2020 AT ANNEXURE-A. II) ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
BEARING NO. GRAAPA/209/GRAPAMKAA/2019, BENGALURU
DATED:04.01.2020 AT "ANNEXURE-A14". III) FURTHER THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
R.DEVDAS, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the complainant made by one Sri.Veerupangouda against the petitioner and his colleague in the matter of allotment of houses, the petitioner and his colleague were asked to submit their reply. Accordingly, -3- NC: 2023:KHC-K:9333-DB WP No. 200463 of 2022 the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations made against him. The matter was entrusted to the respondent No.2-Karnataka Lokayukta for investigation under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the Lokayukta submitted a report to respondent No.1 in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act. The Lokayukta sought entrustment under Section 14A of the Karnataka Civil Service (CCA) Rules to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner and others in respect of the said complaint.
2. To cut short the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is now sought to be contended that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi has passed contradictory order insofar as the petitioner is concerned when compared to the other co- diligent officer. It is submitted that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 05.10.2021 dismissing the application wherein the petitioner has sought for quashment the order -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:9333-DB WP No. 200463 of 2022 dated 04.01.2020. On the other hand, subsequently in respect of an application filed by the co-diligent officer Sri. Sharanagouda in Application No.20128/2020, the Tribunal, by order dated 28.06.2022 allowed the application while setting aside the very same impugned order dated 04.01.2020. The learned counsel would therefore submit that on the basis of parity, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
3. On the previous occasion, we had requested the learned counsel for the Karnataka Lokayukta and the learned High Court Government Pleader to secure instruction as to whether a challenge is raised to the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the Application No. 20128/2020. Both the learned counsel would submit on instruction the same has not been challenged.
4. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that on same set of facts and allegations, the Tribunal could not have passed contradictory orders. What is applicable to the co-diligent -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:9333-DB WP No. 200463 of 2022 officer in terms of the orders passed by the Tribunal in Application No.20128/2020 is also applicable to the writ petitioner herein.
5. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2020 passed by respondent No.1 while setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal at Annexure-A, dated 05.10.2021.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19