C.W. Shakeel Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

C.W. Shakeel Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2013

Author: N Kumar

Bench: N Kumar

                         1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013

                     PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR

                        AND

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

       WRIT PETITION NO.35125 OF 2013 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

C.W.SHAKEEL AHMED,
S/o ABDUL WAHID,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5TH CROSS, MUNICIPAL QUARTERS,
IUDP LAYOUT,
CHITRADURGA - 577501.                ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI ZAMEER PASHA, ADV. FOR M/s LEX PIONEERS)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001.

2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
P.B.No.5329,
A BLOCK, NEW BUILDING,
PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001.             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. S.SUSHEELA, AGA FOR R1)
                            2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2013 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, N KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, did not stay the operation of the order of reversion.

2. The admitted facts are :

The petitioner was promoted as Commissioner, Urban Development Authority, Chitradurga, by an order dated 29.12.2009. On the day he was given promotion, an enquiry had been initiated against him by the Lokayukta. The said fact was not noticed while granting promotion. Subsequently, when it came to their notice, they issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the promotion granted earlier should not be recalled. 3 The petitioner filed his objections. On considering the said objections, the order of reversion came to be passed. The same is challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal admitted the application, but declined to grant stay of the order of reversion, though it granted an order of stay of recovery of the excess salary paid for the promoted post. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends, the petitioner has not suppressed the pendency of the enquiry. He is not at fault. Moreover, the complainant is not appearing before the Court at all. Under these circumstances, though the enquiry was initiated in the year 2009 even after four years, there is no progress. Under those circumstances, he is entitled to an order of stay.

4. When admittedly there was an enquiry pending against the petitioner according to the Rules governing the parties, the authorities could not have granted any promotion. Therefore, when they realized their mistake they have tried to retrace the steps in accordance with law. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in not granting any interim order of stay.

5. We do not see any justification to interfere with the said discretionary order. There is no merit in this petition.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE JT/-

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court