Karnataka High Court
Smt. A V Chandraprabha vs Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage ... on 14 September, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14THDAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.3263/2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. A.V.CHANDRAPRABHA
W/O LATE A. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGE 62 YEARS,
RETD. ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER (SE CADRE)
NO.14, 5TH CROSS, 'A' SECTION,
AMRUTANAGAR MAIN ROAD,
AMRUTANAGAR,
SAHAKARNAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560092.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GOVINDARAJ .K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560009
REPRESENTED BY IT'S
THE CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY
AUTHORITY
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
2
THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 07.01.2020 ISSUED BY REPSPONDENT AS PER
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING-
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of issuance of Show Cause Notice along with the Article of Charges dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure-'G').
2. The petitioner while working as a Additional Executive Engineer (TA to EIC) in BWSSB during the period 2010-2011, she was entrusted with the responsibility of processing the purchase proposals received from Executive Engineers. In such proceedings, respondent found certain irregularities alleged to have been committed among petitioner and others which was the subject matter of enquiry 3 proceedings dated 13.10.2011. On 15.10.2013, Karnataka Lokayukta closed the complaint alleged against the petitioner so also the Enquiry Officer held that petitioner is not guilty on 29.11.2013. Consequently, final order was passed on 25.09.2014 while closing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and others. On 31.05.2018, petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and retried from service. The respondent had re-opened the alleged irregularities committed in the years 2010 and 2011 to the extent of initiation of enquiry on 07.01.2020. Feeling aggrieved with the initiation of an enquiry dated 07.01.2020, the present petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the alleged allegations relates back to the years 2010 and 2011 read with the date of retirement of the petitioner. The respondent 4 had no authority to initiate any enquiry as there is a bar under Rule 214 (2) (b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 (for short, 'KCSR'). The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that on the very same alleged irregularities enquiry was initiated in the year 2011 and it has attained finality on 25.09.2014 in exoneration. Consequently, the second inquiry is impermissible.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that State Government vide letter dated 21.12.2015 had permitted the respondent to initiate enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the respondent's communication. Thus, it is submitted that once the State Government has permitted the respondent herein to initiate enquiry Rule 214 (2) (b) of KCSR would not be a hurdle. It was also submitted that there were irregularities to the tune of crores of 5 rupees. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on decision passed in W.P.No.3221/2020 (S-DE) disposed of on 10.02.2020, wherein this Court in a similar circumstances, Show Cause Notice was the subject matter, writ petition was dismissed as pre- mature. Thus, the present petition is similar to Annexure-'R6'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ appeal is filed on behalf of the petitioner therein, wherein in this court in writ appeal, stayed the order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Question for consideration in the present petition is whether the petition is pre-mature on the score that petitioner has questioned the initiation of enquiry like Article of Charges. Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 held 6 under what circumstances Court can entertain petition against the initiation of enquiry. One of the principle laid down therein is jurisdiction/competancy. Para Nos.15 and 16 reads as under:-
"Para 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge- sheet.
Para 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
In the present case, the respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate enquiry as there is a bar under Rule 214 (2)
(b) of KCSR. Thus, the cited decision at (Annexure- R6) is distinguished herein.
7. The legal contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged incident relates back to the years 2010 and 2011 and petitioner has 7 attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.05.2018. Consequently, initiation of enquiry on 07.01.2020 in respect of the alleged incident in the years 2010 and 2011 is impressible in view of the language employed in Rule 214 (2) (b) of KCSR. Rule 214 (2) (b) of KCSR reads as under:-
"(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment-
i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;
ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and
iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service."
(Emphasis supplied) 8
8. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision, respondent's hands are tied in respect of the petitioner's case is concerned that alleged allegations is of the years 2010 and 2011 and she has attained the age of superannuation as on 31.05.2018.
Consequently, initiation of enquiry on 07.01.2020 would be contrary to the aforesaid provision.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that State Government has permitted the respondent to initiate enquiry vide communication letter dated 21.12.2015. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication letter dated 21.12.2015, in all fairness respondent could have apprised the State Government that there is a bar under Rule 214 (2) (b) (ii) of KCSR for initiation of enquiry against the petitioner. (Annexure-R1) communication letter dated 21.12.2015 do not override statutory provision like Rule 214 (2) (b) (ii) of KCSR. Even the State 9 Government has not applied mind in so far as petitioner is concerned the aforesaid provision would handle.
10. Respondent relied on Co-ordinate bench decision viz., W.P.No.3221/2020 disposed of on 10.02.2020, that this Court has held writ petition is premature, where as issuance of Show Cause Notice is without authority of law. Hence, principle laid down in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana is attracted. Therefore, decision in W.P.No.3221/2020 has no assistance to the respondent.
11. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has made out a prima facie case to interfere with the Show Cause Notice and Article of Charges issued on 07.01.2020. Accordingly, (Annexure-'G') 10 dated 07.01.2020 stands set aside and writ petition is allowed.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KPS