Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Chethan K R on 20 September, 2022
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO.17284 OF 2022(S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY ITS ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU 560 003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP)
AND
1. SRI CHETHAN K.R
S/O RAJASHEKARAPPA K.V.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
HARIHAR,
2
DAVANAGERE SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION,
R/AT NO.5, FOREST QUARTERS,
NEAR PUMP HOUSE, NH4
DAVANAGERE 577601.
2. SRI. V. JAGADEESH
S/O VENKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
O/o. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
SHIVAMOGGA,
RESIDING NEAR PRASANNA GANAPATHI
TEMPLE (CHACHA NEHRU PARK)
VINOBHANAGAR I PHASE,
SHIVAMOGGA.
3. SRI. BABU S
S/O SHEIK BUDEN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
CHALLAKERE RANGE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
R/AT DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT,
NEAR SHARADA SCHOOL,
JANATHA COLONY,
CHALLAKERE 577 522.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO STAY
THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER DATED
27.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION
NO.266 OF 2019 C/W APPLICATION NO.265 OF 2019 AND
APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2019 (ANNEXURE-B) IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, C.M.JOSHI J.,MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This writ petition arises out of the orders passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, ('KSAT' for short) in Application No.266/2019 C/W Application No. 265/2019 and Application No.267/2019 dated 27-01-2021, vide Annexure-B, whereby, the applications were allowed and the order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 15-12-2018 came to be quashed.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are that:
Respondents No. 1 to 3 were discharging duties as Deputy Range Forest Officers ('Dy.RFOs' for short) and they were posted to independent charge under Rule 32 of KCSR in the Cadre of Range Forest Officers and they were placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Watershed Development Department 4 as per order dated 23-12-2017. Pursuant to the said order, they were relieved from their duties as Dy.RFOs on 26-12-2017 and they reported before the Commissioner, Watershed Department, on 27-12-2017. The Commissioner, surrendered the services of the respondents No. 1 to 3 by letter dated 05-02-2018 on the ground that there are no vacancies in the cadre of RFOs in the Watershed Development Department and respondents No. 1 to 3 promptly reported back to the petitioner No.2. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 addressed a letter to respective Conservator of Forests to take back respondents No.1 to 3 in the cadre of Dy.RFOs and accord posting.
Accordingly, they were posted back to the posts in the cadre of Dy.RFOs. Later, respondent Nos.1 to 3 applied to regularize their period when they were relieved to take their assignment in the Watershed Development Department and they reporting back to 5 their earlier posts having been sent back by the Commissioner of the Watershed Development department.
3. On the other hand, petitioner No.2 passed an order which is at Annexure-A14 on 15-12-2018, whereby, ordering that the above period i.e. when they did not work is to be treated as leave without pay. Against the said order, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 approached KSAT, Bengaluru, in Application Nos. 266, 265 and 267/2019. The KSAT, by order dated 27-01-2021, allowed the applications and directed that the said period be treated as compulsory waiting period and respondents No. 1 to 3 are entitled for pay and other allowances and if, pay and other allowances are not paid within 15 days, it shall carry interest of 12%.
6
4. Aggrieved by the said order of KSAT, the Government and petitioner No.2 have approached this Court seeking to set aside the order of KSAT.
5. We have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the writ petitioners.
6. The only point that was canvassed on the part of the petitioners by learned High Court Government Pleader is that, petitioner No.2 by letter dated 26-12-2017, the order of posting of respondents No.1 to 3 under Rule 32 to the various posts in the Watershed Development Department was kept in abeyance and therefore, the relieving of the respondents No. 1 to 3 was illegal and violative of the said order and as such, the period during which the respondents No.1 to 3 did not work is to be treated as leave without pay.
7
7. It is relevant to note that before the respondents No. 1 to 3 were ordered to be posted to Watershed Development Department in the cadre of RFOs under Rule 32, petitioner No.2 ought to have ascertained whether there were vacancies. It appears that he did not ascertain the vacancies from the Watershed Development Department and therefore, the order dated 23-12-2017 came to be issued and communicated to all the RFOs under whom respondents No. 1 to 3 were working.
8. As noted in the order dated 15-12-2018 at Annexure-A14, 25-12-2017 was a public holiday. The order of keeping abeyance the posting order dated 23-12-2017 came to be passed only on 26-12-2017. However, by then, acting on the communication dated 23-12-2017, respondents No. 1 to 3 had got relieved from their respective posts and they reported to duty before the Commissioner, Watershed Development 8 Department. The duty reports were also submitted to the office of petitioner No.2 herein. It is only when the Commissioner, Watershed Development Department wrote a letter to the petitioner No.2, on 5-2-2018 (Produced as Annexur-A5) the petitioners came to know about the non-availability of vacant posts.
9. It is very intriguing to note that, if the petitioner No.2 was informed of non availability of vacancies in the Watershed Development Department on 5-2-2018, it is difficult to accept that an order to keep in abeyance the posting order dated 23-12-2017 was issued on 26-12-2017. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention that the order of keeping the posting orders in abeyance was issued on 26-12-2017.
10. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to note that, relieving of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from the post 9 of Dy.RFOs was not at their instance. It was at the instance of the order of petitioner No.2 dated 23-12-2017 and its implementation by RFOs under whom respondents No. 1 to 3 were working. There is nothing on record to show that such relieving of respondents No. 1 to 3 was at their own instance.
11. The official memorandum produced at Annexure-A14 alleges that Dy.RFOs had intentionally acted upon the order dated 23-12-2017 though they were within the knowledge of subsequent order dated 26-12-2017. There is nothing on record to show that respondents No. 1 to 3 had knowledge of the order dated 26-12-2017. Thus, on the ground that order dated 26-12-2017 was known to respondents No. 1 to 3 and therefore, their act of getting relieved from the post of Sy.RFOs and reporting to duty as per the order dated 23-12-2017 being irregular cannot be accepted. The respondents No. 1 to 3 cannot be fastened with 10 the liability of remaining absent and as such, concluding that they are not entitled for the salary and allowances is not sustainable under law.
12. The KSAT has rightly come to the conclusion that the official Memorandum dated 15-12-2018 is not sustainable under law. We do not find any error in the said conclusion. It is also relevant to note that the KSAT has also rightly observed in para No.6 as below:
"6. In our considered view, it was incumbent on the second respondent and the officers who relieved the applicants to communicate to the applicants about the suspension of the order of 23-12-2017 especially when they have been relieved, issue them posting orders again, regularise the period from the date of their being relieved from the office in the parent department to their rejoining in the same office based on the suspension of the order of 23-12-2017 on 26- 12-2017, to provide continuity of service in the same office. The second respondent and the administration division under the second respondent were indeed derelict and demonstrated an utterly casual and disrespectful approach in dealing with the matter. It is utterly reprehensible that the 11 second respondent and the administration division under that authority to cover their dereliction have sought to penalise the applicants for no fault of the applicants. It is a cruel joke perpetrated on the applicants that not only have they been deprived of being posted in a higher cadre but also ended up being deprived of even their pay to which they would have been entitled to in their jobs held by them prior to the order of the second respondent of 23-12-2017. We are convinced based on the documents presented to us on behalf of the applicants and the lack of explanation to certain basic questions which we had asked the learned government pleader with regard to the contention on behalf of the respondent state that the applicants have been brazen and derelict to report to their posts from which they have been relieved following the suspension of the order of 23-12-2017, that the impugned order is unsustainable in facts and is perverse in nature since it seeks to penalise the applicants for what is clearly the failure of the second respondent to address the situation and fall out of the suspension of the order of 23-12-2017. It is unfortunate that the ire of second respondent was misdirected and fell on the applicants who deserved to be treated better than they have been by the head of the department and we wish that the second respondent had dealt with the matter with a more humane, respectful and professional approach".
13. It is also pertinent to note that after reporting to duty at their new postings, respondent 12 Nos. 1 to 3 have informed the petitioner No.2 about their joining and thereafter, they came back and reported in the office of petitioner No.2 and waited for the posting orders. It is not known as to why petitioner No.2 did not issue directions immediately to repost respondents No. 1 to 3 at their earlier places and it was only issued on 19-4-2018. Moreover, respondents No. 1 to 3 had submitted several representations that they are deprived of the salaries after reporting back to the office of the petitioner No.2. Thus, the writ petition is bereft of any merits.
14. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*