Karnataka High Court
S. V. Venkatarangan vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
W.P.No.54289/2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.54289 OF 2017 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
S. V. VENKATARANGAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI S.V.VENKATARAMAIAH,
P.D.O UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER
FROM MANDUR GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562129 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI PAVAN G.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT &
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
JILLA PANCHAYAT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BANASHANKARI,
S.KARIYAPPA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560070
W.P.No.54289/2017
-2-
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
K.R.PURA, BENGALURU-560036
4. P.A.POONACHA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O SRI P.K.APPACHU,
WORKING AS
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
R/AT V.V.JEM APARTMENT,
3RD FLOOR, C.N.REDDY LAYOUT,
KALYANNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560043 ... RESPONDENTS
(SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AGA FOR R1,
SRI M. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 &
SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD:15.11.2017 MADE IN APPLICATION
NO.6044/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU [ANNEXURE-D]
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The fourth respondent, herein, has filed a memo seeking dismissal of the writ petition, while pointing out the subsequent events since after passing of the impugned order dated 15.11.2017.
W.P.No.54289/2017-3-
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we have considered the main matter finally, at this stage itself.
This petition is directed against the order dated 15.11.2017, as passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal) in Application No.6044/2017, that was filed by the respondent No.4 of this writ petition, while questioning the order dated 25.09.2017 as regards posting and transfers. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the said application with a short order dated 15.11.2017, which reads in its entirety as under:
"Applicant is before this Tribunal, challenging the impugned order of transfer bearing No. UÁæC¥À 598 UÁæ¥ÀAPÁ 2017 dated 25.9.2017 at Annexure-A13 on the file of 1st respondent.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant was waiting for posting and therefore by order dated 5.7.2017 at Annexure-A7 (vide Sl.No.9) the applicant was posted as PDO, Mandur Grama Panchyat, Bangalore East Taluk and the said posting of the applicant to Mandur Grama Panchyat by order dated 5.7.2017 as per Annexure-A7 was challenged by the 4th respondent in A.No.3975/2017 and by order dated 17.7.2017 request for interim order was rejected and subsequently the said application was also withdrawn. He further submits that though in the above said application interim order was not granted, the 4th respondent was retained W.P.No.54289/2017 -4- by the impugned order dated 25.9.2017 at Annexure-A13 (vide Sl.No.1). He also submits that retention of 4th respondent as PDO of Mandur Grama Panchayat is on the basis of political influence of Sri M.Narayanaswamy, MLC and Sri B.A.Basavaraju, MLA, K.R.Pura Constituency and therefore the impugned order at Annexure-A13 has been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister for retention of the 4th respondent in the same place, thereby posting of applicant to Mandur Grama Panchayat in place of 4th respondent is cancelled and the same is contrary to the transfer guidelines. He further submits that now the 4th respondent has been kept under suspension by order dated 3.11.2017 at Annexure-A15. Therefore, he submits that the impugned retention of 4th respondent at Mandur Grama Panchayat at Annexure-A13 may be quashed.
3. Learned Government pleader as well as learned counsel for 4th respondent admit that the 4th respondent has been kept under suspension as per Annexure-A15 and the same was challenged by him before this Tribunal and no interim order was granted in favour of 4th respondent.
4. Keeping in view that the 4th respondent has brought political influence for his retention at Mandur Grama Panchayat and as a result of which the applicant, who was given posting to Mandur Grama Panchayat by order dated 5.7.2017 at Annexure-A7 came to be cancelled, contrary to transfer guidelines, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to succeed in the application. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER Application is allowed and the impugned order of transfer bearing No. UÁæC¥À 598 UÁæ¥ÀAPÁ W.P.No.54289/2017 -5- 2017 dated 25.9.2017 at Annexure-A13 on the file of 1st respondent, in so far as it relates to continuation of the 4th respondent as PDO, Mandur Grama Panchayat, Bangalore East Taluk, is quashed. The applicant is entitled to report for duty as per the order dated 5.7.2017 at Annexure-A7."
It is noticed that when this petition was taken up for consideration on 15.12.2017, this Court took note of the relevant facts of the case and declined the prayer for interim relief, while observing as under:
"Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1.
Sri M.Pradeep, learned Counsel states that he has filed vakalat for respondent No.2. Registry to show his name in the cause list.
At the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have considered the interim prayer.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been suspended from service as per the order dated 03.11.2017 on the allegation that he had demanded a bribe of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) from one Ashok Kulal to grant permission to him for trading of live stock.
On the facts of the case, we find no ground to stay the final order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.6044/2017 which is impugned in this writ petition. The interim prayer is accordingly rejected. It is relevant to state that the Tribunal by the aforesaid order dated 15.11.2017 has set aside the order of the Government dated W.P.No.54289/2017 -6- 25.09.2017 directing continuance of the petitioner in Mandur Gram Panchayat.
List on 04.01.2018 at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner."
Now, it has been pointed out that upon the petitioner's representation made pursuant to the Tribunal's order dated 12.01.2018 in Application No.6600/2017, the State Government revoked the order of suspension; and by further order dated 06.02.2018, the petitioner was posted to Sonnenahalli Grama Panchayat, Bengaluru North Taluk as Panchayat Development Officer, pending disciplinary inquiry.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has pointed out that as per her instructions, the petitioner has since joined at the new place of posting at Sonnenahalli on 19.03.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this position.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has strenuously argued that the impugned order dated 15.11.2017 proceeds on rather incorrect premise and then, the observations as occurring in paragraph 4 thereof, imputing political influence on the petitioner are without any basis. W.P.No.54289/2017 -7- Learned counsel would submit that from the material on record it would appear, contrary to what has been alleged against the petitioner, that it had rather been the respondent No.4 who had somehow ensured his posting at Mandur Grama Panchyat with political influence.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the matter and having examined the entire record, we are clearly of the view that in the given set of facts and circumstances, a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is not made out; and the interest of justice would be served with the requisite observations while disposing of this writ petition.
Perusal of the record makes out that, as per the RTI information obtained by or on behalf of either of the contesting parties, i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No.4, apparently there had been recommendations/suggestions made for retention/posting of these incumbents. Of course, the Tribunal has not entered into elaborate and in-depth discussion of all the documents on record but, this much is apparent that the Tribunal was satisfied that continuing of the present petitioner at Mandur Grama Panchayat was not in the W.P.No.54289/2017 -8- interest of justice and in the totality of circumstances, allowed the applicant (the respondent No.4 herein) to report for duty at Mandur as per the earlier order dated 05.07.2017.
We do not propose to dwell further into this matter for the reason that admittedly, after passing of the order impugned and after rejection of the prayer for interim relief by this Court, subsequent events have taken place where suspension of the petitioner has been revoked and he has not only been given the posting in a different Grama Panchayat but, he has indeed joined thereat. In the given circumstances, it does not appear now serving the course of justice to enter into the rival contentions of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 against each other.
In our view, this matter as regards posting of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 ought to be closed without disturbing the position obtaining at present. However, the totality of circumstances and in view of the material on record, it appears appropriate to observe that the observations as occurring in paragraph 4 of the order impugned shall only be read in the context of the subject matter before the Tribunal W.P.No.54289/2017 -9- and such observations shall not, by themselves, be considered adverse to the petitioner particularly, in relation to the inquiry said to be pending against him. It shall, of course, be expected of the respondents to deal with the said inquiry dispassionately and objectively, and of course in an expedited manner.
Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.
The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB