Karnataka High Court
Sanna Pyateppa S/O Janappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 November, 2022
1 W.P.No.202928/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL B. KATTI
WRIT PETITION No.202928/2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Sanna Pyateppa S/o Janappa,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Head Master,
District Institute of Education
And Training (DIET), Yeramarus,
Raichur Taluk & District,
R/at Near Methodist Church,
Masarkal, Deodurga Taluk,
Raichur District-584 126.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Prashant B. Wajantri, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
(Primary & Higher) Education Department,
M.S.Building,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Department of Public Instructions,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2 W.P.No.202928/2022
3. The Additional Commissioner,
Department of Public Instructions,
Kalaburagi District,
Kalaburagi-585 102.
4. The Deputy Director (Admn.),
Department of Public Instructions,
Raichur,
Raichur District-584101.
5. The Principal,
District Institute of Education and
Training (DIET),
Yeramarus,
Raichur Taluk & District-584 134.
... Respondents
(By Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, Govt. Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned
order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, at Kalaburagi in Application
No.20090/2022 vide Annexure-E and allow the application as
prayed for.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
K.S.Mudagal J., made the following:
ORDER
Heard.
2. The petitioner was selected to the post of Headmaster in the 1st respondent institution as per 3 W.P.No.202928/2022 Annexure-A1 select list dated 07.07.2010 notified by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. Accordingly, under the appointment order dated 15.07.2010 he joined the service. On the complaint that the petitioner taken illegal gratification for performing his official duty, he was trapped and kept under suspension by order Annexure-A3 dated 10.07.2012. The said suspension order was revoked by order Annexure-A4 dated 12.12.2012.
3. The petitioner was subjected to domestic enquiry in the said trap proceeding. On finding him guilty of the charges he was handed over the punishment as per Annexure-A5 dated 17.08.2020 withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect. By order Annexure- A11 dated 06.01.2022, the 3rd respondent discharged the petitioner from service exercising the powers under Rule 5(1)(b) and 6(1) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 on the ground that he has failed to complete the probation satisfactorily. It was held that i) during the probationary period he was subjected to punishment for 4 W.P.No.202928/2022 misconduct ii) he failed to complete prescribed departmental examinations iii) his services were not satisfactory and iv) he was unstable to continue in the service.
4. He challenged that order in Application No.20090/2022. The Tribunal by the impugned order quashed the order Annexure-A11 dated 06.01.2022 on the sole ground that as per the Rule 6(1) of KCS (Probation) Rules, 1977, the 3rd respondent was required to take the confirmation by the next higher authority. However after quashing such order, the Tribunal by the impugned order directed the 3rd respondent to submit the said order for confirmation to the next higher authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the impugned order.
5. By virtue of the discharge order dated 06.01.2022, by order Annexure-A12 dated 17.08.2022, the 5th respondent relieved the petitioner from service. Therefore, from the date of such relief till the date of his 5 W.P.No.202928/2022 reinstatement by virtue of the interim order of the Tribunal, the petitioner did not work. The Tribunal by the impugned order directed the 1st respondent to treat that period as the leave admissible to him and balance period as extraordinary leave.
6. The grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is that once when the order of discharge was set aside, it was not open to the Tribunal to direct the 3rd respondent to submit the same order to the next higher authority for confirmation. The other contention is that the order to treat the period of absence as leave is erroneous and he should have given all benefits for that period.
7. Learned Government Advocate submits that since the discharge order was set aside on technical grounds, it is open to the respondents to discharge the petitioner by taking the confirmation of the next higher authority.
6 W.P.No.202928/2022
8. Admittedly, the petitioner faced domestic enquiry on the serious charges of demand/acceptance of illegal gratification. He had not challenged the order of punishment. The Tribunal set aside the discharge order solely on the technical ground of not seeking confirmation of the higher authority as required under Rule 6(1). Under such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal cannot be interpreted to state that the Tribunal totally barred the respondents to reconsider the proceedings for confirmation/discharge of the petitioner in accordance with law i.e., taking the confirmation of the next higher authority.
9. Sofar as treating the period of absence the order of the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal intended to address the period of absence between the date of relieving of the petitioner till his re-instatement by virtue of the interim order of the Tribunal only that has to be clarified.
7 W.P.No.202928/2022
10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the respondents to reconsider the declaration of the probation of the petitioner/his discharge strictly in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. The period of absence of the petitioner from the date of his relief under Annexure-A12 dated 17.01.2022 till his reinstatement by virtue of the interim order of the Tribunal shall be treated as leave/extraordinary leave admissible to him.
The respondents shall do the aforesaid exercise within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order being uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BL