Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs H M Jagadish Kumar on 16 August, 2022
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
WP No. 147723 of 2020
C/W WP NO.147725/2020
WP NO.147726/2020
WP NO.101528/2022
WP NO.102944/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 147723 OF 2020 (S-KAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.147725/2020 (S-KAT)
WRIT PETITIONO NO.147726/2020 (S-KAT)
WRIT PETITION NO.101528/2022 (S-KAT)
WRIT PETITION NO.102944/2020 (S-KAT)
IN WP NO.147723/2020
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY PRL.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIROMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H M JAGADISH KUMAR S/O.LATE MARIYAPPA
AGE : 60 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
H.NO.84, SHIVASHAKTI NILAYA,
TUDA LAYOUT, JAGANNATHAPURA, TUMAKURU
VINAYAKA
BV
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
Dharwad.
Date: 2022.08.24
-2-
WP No. 147723 of 2020
C/W WP NO.147725/2020
WP NO.147726/2020
WP NO.101528/2022
WP NO.102944/2022
2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. VINAY KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU IN APPLICATION, NO.7956/2018 BY ORDER DATED
06.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
IN WP NO.147725/2020
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY PRL.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIROMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAN N. GANGOLI S/O NARAYAN NAIK
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RETIRED DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
SHARADA NIKETANA, MAHASATI BENA,
KATGAL POST, KODAMBALE-581362, KUMATA TALUK,
U.K. DISTRICT.
2. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M. VINAY KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADV. FOR R2)
-3-
WP No. 147723 of 2020
C/W WP NO.147725/2020
WP NO.147726/2020
WP NO.101528/2022
WP NO.102944/2022
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION, NO.7696/2018 BY ORDER DATED
06.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
IN WP NO.147726/2020
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY PRL.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIROMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKATESH S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA
AGE : 61 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
SRINIDHI NILAYA, DRAKSHI THOTA,
VIDYANAGAR, TUMAKURU-572103.
2. G.R. KESHAVAMURTHY S/O LATE B.S. RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
GUTHI VILLAGE & POST MUDLIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DIST-577113.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M. VINAY KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
-4-
WP No. 147723 of 2020
C/W WP NO.147725/2020
WP NO.147726/2020
WP NO.101528/2022
WP NO.102944/2022
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION, NO.7876-7877/2018 BY ORDER DATED
06.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
IN WP NO.101528/2022
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H.M. JAGADISH KUMAR
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGE:63 YEARS, OCC:RETIRED ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, R/O HOUSE NO.84, SHIVASHAKTI NILAYA,
TUDA LAYOUT, JAGANNATHAPURA, TUMAKURU-572101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIROMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M. VINAY KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(BY SRI.G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION, NO.7956/2018 BY ORDER DATED
06.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
-5-
WP No. 147723 of 2020
C/W WP NO.147725/2020
WP NO.147726/2020
WP NO.101528/2022
WP NO.102944/2022
IN WP NO.102944/2022
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAN N. GANGOLI S/O NARAYAN NAIK
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RETIRED DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
SHARADA NIKETANA, MAHASATI BENA,
KATGAL POST, KODAMBALE-581362, KUMATA TALUK,
U.K. DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ECOLOGY AND ENVIROMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M. VINAY KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(BY SRI.G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION, NO.7696/2018 BY ORDER DATED
06.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE &
EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING.
-6-
WP No. 147723 of 2020
C/W WP NO.147725/2020
WP NO.147726/2020
WP NO.101528/2022
WP NO.102944/2022
COMMON ORDER
Since question involved in all these writ petitions are common, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. In all these writ petitions, Government as well as Lokayukta are before this Court challenging the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'KAT') in Application No.7956/2018 (WP No.147723/2020 & WP No.101528/2022); order dated 06.09.2019 in Application No. 7696/2018 (WP No.147725/2020 & WP No.102944/2022); order dated 06.09.2019 in Application Nos.7876-7877/2018 (WP No.147726/2020).
3. Heard Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate, Sri. Vinay M Keerthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Anil Kale, learned -7- WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022 counsel for Lokayukta in all the petitions and perused the writ petition papers.
4. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the KAT committed an error in quashing the entrustment order in all the writ petitions passed under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'CCA Rules') read with Rule 214 of the KCSRs.
Learned Government Advocate would submit that the KAT accepted the contention of the applicant i.e. respondent No.1 herein that the Lokayukta could not have entertained the second complaint; that the complainant had remedy of appeal under Law and Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules would have no application to the retired government servants.
Learned Government Advocate would also submit that the above contention was the subject matter in WP No.147724/2020 and this Court by order dated 6.6.2022 negated the contention of respondents that the Lokayukta -8- WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022 could not have entertained the second complaint as well as the complainant had remedy of appeal. Further, learned Government Advocate would also bring to the notice of this Court the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. M. Basappa Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka & Others1, wherein this Court held that the Government may direct such enquiry to be conducted in accordance with the procedure applicable to the Government Servants, as if the Government Servant was in service, in respect of a retired Government Servant.
Thus, he submits that since the contention raised by the petitioner herein is already answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the above two decisions, writ petition requires to be allowed in terms of those decisions.
5. Per contra, Sri. Vinay M Keerthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that multiple 1 2017 (3) Kar.L.J. 160 -9- WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022 Departments are involved and only against officials of Forest Department, enquiry is being conducted. Thus, he submits that there is hostile discrimination against applicants, who belong to Forest Department. Further, he would submit that respondent No.1 herein, who is an applicant before the KAT was served with charge memo only after their retirement, as such, Rule 14-A of CCA Rules would have no application to their cases. Thus, he submits that no case is made out by the Government to entertain the writ petitions. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. We have gone through the writ petition papers and order passed by this Court dated 06.06.2022 in WP No.147724/2020 as well as decision in Dr. M. Basappa Reddy's case (supra).
7. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.147724/2020 dated 6.6.2022, while considering the
- 10 -
WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022contention that Lokayukta could not have entertained second complaint and that the complainant had an alternative remedy of appeal, this Court answered the same as follows:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
i) The contention of learned Government Advocate that the dismissal of first complaint by the Lokayuktha cannot bar a second complaint, appears to be impressive inasmuch as at page No.96 of the Paper Book, the Lokayuktha had negated the earlier complaint vide report dated 06.02.2018 only for want of evidence. Thus, this subject not treated on merits at an earlier stage.
ii) The second ground on which the relief has been granted to the respondent - employee that against the orders granting the Hakku Pathra, an appeal lies is in a sense legally misconceived; appeal may lie, arguably;
however, that per se will not interdict the petitioner - employer from holding disciplinary proceedings against it's employee if grounds do exist therefor."
In the instant case also, Annexure-A4, endorsement of Lokayukta dated 14.08.2018 makes it clear that first complaint against respondent No.1 in all the writ petitions was closed solely on the ground
- 11 -
WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022that there are no sufficient materials produced by the complainant in support of the allegations. Moreover as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, even though the complainants are provided with appeal, enquiry initiated against the respondents is with regard to misconduct. Whether it is a misconduct or not is a question that is to be gone into in an enquiry.
Hence, we are of the opinion that decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench in the above stated writ petition would squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
8. The other contention of respondent No.1 that Rule 14-A of CCA Rules would have no application to the retired government servants is answered in Dr. M. Basappa Reddy's case (supra). The Division Bench of this Court considering the provision of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, Rule 214 of KCSRs and other relevant
- 12 -
WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 has observed as follows:
"13. We have carefully bestowed our anxious considerations to the said provisions and Rules quoted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the Ruling of this Court in ILR 1962 Mys. 900 (supra). Specifically Rule 2(d) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1967 reads thus:
"2. (d) "Government Servant" means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka."
On meaningful understanding of the said decision and the definition clause, it is crystal clear that, the Disciplinary Proceedings cannot be initiated and proceeded against the retired Government Servants under the said rules, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as in these rules, the present tense is used sofar as the Government Servants are concerned. Therefore, we have consider the provision under Rule 214 of the said Rules, to know as to whether the rule is applicable or not to the facts of this case.
14. The legislators in their wisdom have introduced Rule 214 to KCS (CCA) Rules, by way of substitution by Notification in No. FD 36 SRS 90, dated 10-10-1990 with effect from 18-10-1990.
15. The Rule 214(2)(b), 214(6)(a) and 214(6)(b) of KCS (CCA) Rules are the relevant provisions which are necessary so far as this case is concerned which deals
- 13 -
WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022with the Departmental proceedings against a retired Government Servant and for withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence by the retired Government Servant. For the purpose of meaningful understanding and discussion, we would like to extract the relevant portion of the said rules ie., 214(1)(a), 214(1)(b) and 214(2)(b), as under:
"214. (1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence.- The Government reserve themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.
(b) Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension.-The Government reserve to themselves the right of ordering recovery from a pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Goverment or to a foreign employer under whom the Government Servant has worked on deputation or otherwise. If in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave negligence during the period of his service, including the service rendered upon re-
employment after retirement:
....
(2)...
(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
- 14 -WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022
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."
The above said provisions disclose that, the provisions have been very much in existence as on the date of retirement of the petitioner herein. The said provisions have been in vogue since 18-10-1990. Rule 214(1)(a) and 214(1)(b) recognises the withholding of pension or withdrawing the pension or recovery of the pension if any disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings are initiated during the period when the Government Servant was in service. Sub-rule (2)(b)(i) to (2)(b)(iii) of Rule 214 refer to the departmental proceedings so far they relate to a retired Government Servants are concerned. Sub-rule (2)(b) specifically indicates that the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service, the same shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct. It clearly empowers the Disciplinary Authority or Government to institute such disciplinary proceedings with the sanction of the Government, and it shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Sub-clause (iii) contemplates that such proceedings shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to the departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government Servant during his service. That means, the Disciplinary Authority itself can conduct the enquiry or by such an authority as the Government or the authority may direct and such enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure applicable to the Government Servants as if the Government Servant was in service i.e., to say Rules 11, 11-A and 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules so far as the procedural aspects are concerned.
- 15 -
WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/202218. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if Rale 214(2)(b) states that the Government can take action against the retired employees, and it specifically imposes responsibility on the Government to deal with the retired Government Servant, it cannot delegate its power to any other person or authority. Further, he submitted that, even if the Government refers the matter to any other person or authority invoking the provision under Rule 214(2)(b)(iii), in turn, it should follow Rule 11(1) to 11(5) and thereafter only it can refer the matter to any other authority; that the authority to which the Departmental Enquiry was transferred has no jurisdiction to frame charges and then proceed with the matter; that it is the fundamental duty of the Disciplinary Authority to frame charges and receive the statement of objections from the delinquent employee and thereafter if it is satisfied, an enquiry has to be proceeded with, only then the State Government can refer the matter to the other authority. It is further argued that, in this particular case, the Disciplinary Authority has not framed the charges or supplied the articles of charges to the delinquent employee and not taken the written statement before referring the matter to Lokayukta for enquiry. Therefore, the entire procedure followed by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently by Inquiry Officer is vitiated by serious incurable procedural defect and it vitiates the entire proceedings. Hence, un that ground also, the order passed by the Government has to be set aside.
19. Rule 214(2)(b)(iii) empowers the Disciplinary Authority or the Government, to conduct enquiry through such authority and in such place as the Government may direct, in accordance with the procedure applicable. This clearly indicates that the Government can conduct enquiry through anyother authority, but the other authority should follow the procedure applicable to department inquiries. Therefore, it goes without saying that Rules 11 & 14-A of CCA Rules are virtually mutatis mutandis applicable for the purpose of conducting Departmental Inquiry.
- 16 -
WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/202226. However house of these submissions deserve to be accepted. Of course, Rule 11(1) to 11(6) of the CCA Rules imposes responsibility on the Disciplinary Authority if Disciplinary Authority and Enquiring Authority. are different. However, as already referred, the provisions of Rule 14-A (a special provision) of the Rules, specify that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 11-A and 13, Rule 14-A would be applicable for the purpose of proceeding against Government) Servant whose alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta. either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act or reference from the Government. Further, reading the sub-rule (2)(c) of Rule 14-A of the Rules, would clarify that all the powers vested with the Disciplinary Authority, can also be exercised by the Lokayukta while dealing with the matter conducting the disciplinary enquiry against the delinquent employee. Therefore, there is no confusion at all regarding the powers of Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta even when they themselves have investigated the matter with regard to the misconduct of the petitioner. If Rule 11(6) of the Rules, and Rule 14-A are read jointly and homogeneity what emerges is, even if the written statement of the delinquent is not considered by the Disciplinary Authority and no articles of charges and statement of imputations were framed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Lokayukta can perform such acts while dealing with the departmental enquiry of a delinquent employee. In view of harmonious reading of Rules 11 and 14-A of the CCA Rules as noted above, in our opinion, the Inquiry Officer who is entrusted with the work by the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta can definitely frame articles of charges and statement of imputations against the delinquent employee and proceed further to enquire into the matter.
27. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that all the powers of th Disciplinary Authority are fully vested with the Enquiring Authority unde Section 14-A(2)(c) of the said Rules for the purposes of enquiry. It is virtuall the special procedure to be adopted by the Lokayukta with reference to the delinquent employee. In view of the same, we do not find any strong reason to quash the
- 17 -
WP No. 147723 of 2020 C/W WP NO.147725/2020 WP NO.147726/2020 WP NO.101528/2022 WP NO.102944/2022Disciplinary Enquiry conducted by the Additional Registrar of Lokayukta, inasmuch as the same is not vitiated by any serious incurable defect."
9. In the light of the above, orders passed by the KAT is not sustainable and accordingly, same are liable to be set-aside. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) WP No. 147723 of 2020, WP No. 147725 of 2020, WP No.147726 of 2020 are allowed.
b) The orders dated 06.09.2019 passed in Application Nos.7956/2018, 7696/2018 & 7876-7877/2018 are hereby set-aside.
c) In view of disposal of writ petitions filed by the Government, WP No.101528/2022 & WP No.102944/2022 would not survive consideration and same are dismissed.
d) All contentions of respondent No.1
including hostile discrimination is kept
open.
- 18 -
WP No. 147723 of 2020
C/W WP NO.147725/2020
WP NO.147726/2020
WP NO.101528/2022
WP NO.102944/2022
e) Enquiry against respondents-government officials shall be completed expeditiously since they are retired government servants.
f) Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.
SD JUDGE SD JUDGE JTR