Karnataka High Court
S S Kashi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2078
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana, H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO.3306/2020 [S-KSAT]
BETWEEN:
SRI S.S.KASHI
S/O SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
(UNDER RULE 32 OF KCSR)
CID, FOREST CELL
5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD
BUILDING, R/AT NO.B-416,
WILSON VINTAGE APARTMENTS,
B.T.S.ROAD, BEHIND AUDUGODI
POST OFFICE
WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU-560 030. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
2
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE POLICE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
GENERAL POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. H N VENKATESHA PRASANNA
S/O M V NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
ISD, PRESENTLY
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CCB, BENGALURU ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2019 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
IN APPLICATION NO.5174/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The Applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ['Tribunal', for short] in Application No.5174/2019, has come up in this writ petition, impugning its Order dated 16.12.2019.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner herein is a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is promoted under Rule-32 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules ['KCSR', for short] on 16.06.2015 and thereafter continuing as such under Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this proceedings. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that he is not allowed to work peacefully in one place for atleast two years term as he is entitled to from the date of his appointment till this day. The records would indicate that he entered service as 'Sub-Inspector' in Karnataka Police Department on 1.2.1996 and thereafter promoted as 'Circle Inspector' in the year 2003 and subsequently as 'Deputy Superintendent of Police' under Rule 32 of KCSR on 16.06.2015.4
3. According to the petitioner, he has put in twenty four years of service in the Department, during which period, he has been shunted from one place to another on thirty occasions. When he was working as 'Deputy Superintendent of Police' in a non executive post, in Forest Department, he was subjected to transfer from Forest Department to CCB, Bengaluru vide Order bearing No.CG-04/06/2019-20 OB No.536/2019 dated 19.08.2019. It is stated that even before the ink would dry on the said order, on the very same day, vide Order bearing No.CB-4/06/2019-20 OB No.542/2019 dated 19.08.2019 he is transferred from the Forest Department to CCB, Bengaluru, in suppression of the earlier order passed on the same day. It is this order which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal where amongst other things, his contention was that he was not allowed to work peacefully in one place atleast for two years in his twenty four years of service and was moved from one place to another on nearly thirty occasions. 5
4. It is also stated that when he approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not look into the matter in a holistic manner and has passed the order impugned by giving a finding that the subsequent order dated 19.08.2019 in OB No.542/2019 being cancellation of Order bearing OB No.536/2019 of even date, the same would not amount to transfer and therefore the same cannot be interfered which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. Though technically, finding of the Tribunal appears to be just and proper, the manner in which the case of the petitioner is considered only shows the apathy with which the entire system works.
5. When this matter had come up for consideration before this Court, learned Additional Government Advocate was called upon to instruct the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, to file an affidavit stating as to why the petitioner was not allowed to work in one place for atleast two years and why he has been shunted from one place to another on thirty occasions in twenty four years. When 6 the said order was passed, the same was not complied. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions would submit to this Court that the petitioner is not honest and there are several inquiries pending against him so on and so forth. When this Court called upon them to place it on record in the form of an affidavit, the same was not done, for which this Court was compelled to pass some punitive orders which are subsequently taken to the Apex Court.
6. Now, coming back to the merits of the case, when the affidavit of the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, which is filed today, is looked into, the instructions which were given by Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka to learned Additional Government Advocate on the previous date of hearing to inform this Court that there are several allegations and inquiries pending against the Officer and that is one of the reasons why the petitioner is not given Executive Post appears to be incorrect. The aforesaid statement is in the light of the arguments advanced by 7 learned Counsel for the Petitioner where he would draw the attention of this Court to the guidelines issued under the Government Order No.ME/111/¥ÉƸÀE/2014 dated 16.09.2014 wherein in Annexure-3, item No.3 deals with Deputy Superintendent of Police who has worked continuously in executive post for three years or for eight years should compulsorily posted to work in non-executive post whereas in Item No.4 it is indicated vis-à-vis when the persons who have worked in non-executive post for three times and for maximum period of eight years should compulsorily given an Executive post. By citing this, the petitioner had stated that though he was promoted to the post of 'Deputy Superintendent of Police' in the year 2015 under Rule 32 of KCSR, he was not given posting to the Executive post even though in the said four years he is transferred on more than three occasions. He would state that if the length of service in the post of 'Inspector' as well as in the post of 'Deputy Superintendent of Police' is taken into consideration for the past eight years, he is not given executive post and he would further submit that the same 8 would come in the way of promotion where he has not worked in the executive post continuously for three years. It is in this background, he is agitating the matter before the Tribunal and before this Court.
7. However, the affidavit filed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, clearly discloses that whatever submission that was made by the Department through the learned Additional Government Advocate, on previous occasion, is utter false. Though it was stated that there were several allegations against the petitioner, paragraph-7 [a] to [i] of the affidavit would indicate that all complaints made against the petitioner herein are ultimately proven to be false complaints or minor complaints where he was let off by censure without imposing any penalty, consequently, in accepting that there was no truth in most of the allegations which are made against the petitioner. It is not that this Court would accept there are no allegations against the petitioner, but that is what the affidavit would indicate. Be that as it may. When it comes to transfer for 9 thirty times, the Director General and Inspector General of Police in his affidavit tried to camouflage in admitting that he was transferred on twenty two occasions and other orders which were passed on eight times are for correction of earlier transfer order. However, he does not state as to in what way the corrections were carried out is not indicated in the affidavit.
8. In the affidavit of the Director General and Inspector General of Police, at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, the post held by the petitioner herein from the date of his appointment till this day is furnished in tabular form which indicates for how many years or months the petitioner has worked at one place. If that is looked into, initially he was made to work peacefully at one place for two years one month between the years 1997 to 1999 and thereafter as 'Circle Inspector of Police' between 2009 to 2011 for two years four months. Barring this, all transfers are for different periods which is admittedly contrary to the transfer guidelines. When the fault is being with the Department, making false and untrue allegations against 10 an Officer is unpardonable and that too, to cover up the mistake, these allegations are made recklessly and when it comes to filing of the affidavit of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, had no other option, but to tell the truth before this Court. In any event, it is clearly seen that there is deliberate attempt of targeting the petitioner herein in transferring him from one place to another without any rhyme or reason and denying his right of getting an Executive Post as per the transfer guidelines dated 16.09.2014.
9. In that view of the matter, the Order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2019 in Application No.5174/2019 is set aside and consequently the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, with a positive direction that in following the guidelines/rules vide Government Order No.ME/111/¥ÉƸÀE/2014 dated 16.09.2014, the petitioner herein shall be given an Executive Post forthwith since he has already completed three posting in a Non-executive 11 post and he should be provided with an Executive Post within one week from today.
10. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the said post for minimum period of next two years unless there is any allegation which calls for such action. If the aforesaid order is not complied on time on time bound basis, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Contempt Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-