Karnataka High Court
Mr Maaz Ahmed Shariff vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2013
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.S.Indrakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA
WRIT PETITION No.23108/2013 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
MR MAAZ AHMED SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O A AZIZ SHARIFF
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE
(SUPERTIME SCALE) RTD
NO.548, 8TH MAIN
4TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560034 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M S BHAGWAT, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(By SMT S SUSHEELA AGA)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DT 17.10.2012 OF THE HON'BLE KAT IN
APPLICATION NO.2967/2011 (ANNX-A TO THE W.P.) .
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
This writ petition is by a person, whose Application No.2967/2011 is pending before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in which the writ petitioner has questioned the legality of a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him while in service, as per show-cause notice dated 25.6.2010. He had been charged with the allegation that during his tenure as Chief Executive Officer in Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, a sum of Rs.1.5 crores released by the Government to the Wakf Board on 22.5.1999 had been deposited in private Co-operative Bank at Shivajinagar, only to favour his wife, who was a Director in that Branch of the Bank. Writ petitioner has questioned the -3- legality of such enquiry initiated against him. The Tribunal has issued emergent notice to the respondent - State and on finding prima facie case also had granted an interim order of stay on 11.04.2011, staying the operation of the Government Order dated 2.9.2010 (Annexure A4) for a period of four months and it is being continued from time to time. However, the petitioner is aggrieved that the said interim order has come to be vacated on 17.10.2012 without giving any reason. The interim order reads as under:-
"ACK.J(C)/ADG(AM) 17.10.2012 Annexure-A4 by which an enquiring authority was appointed has been stayed by interim order dated 11.4.2011 which has been extended from time to time. It was alleged that the applicant had not been permitted to Inspect the file. It is admitted that file was later made available for inspection.
Therefore, we do not find any valid ground to continue the stay regarding appointment of enquiring authority. Therefore, interim order dated 11.4.2011 by which the -4- order dated 2.9.2010 (Annexure-A4) was stayed, is hereby discontinued.
Reply statement in four weeks."
2. It is aggrieved by this order the present writ petition.
3. Mr.M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that there is absolutely no reason for discontinuing the interim order; that there was not even an application for vacating the stay order; that the Tribunal failed to see that if the interim order is vacated, the application will virtually be rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellant also wants to urge on the merits of the application.
4. Notice had been issued to the respondent - State Government and State Government is represented by Smt. Susheela, learned AGA. Learned AGA points out that in respect of granting or not granting an interim order by the Tribunal, and against vacating an interim -5- order, the writ petition need not be entertained by this court, more so, when the main matter is pending before the tribunal.
5. Mr. Bhagwat, leanred counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has retired from service and it will be an ordeal; that in view of this pending proceedings petitioner has not been provided even his retiral benefits etc; that the petitioner has now received notice to participate in the enquiry. Though Mr. Bhagwat would urge that enquiry cannot be initiated after lapse of several years, what we find in the present case is that in respect of an incident said to have occurred in 1999 notice had been issued, while the petitioner was still in service.
6. Be that as it may, we would not like to pass orders on the merits of this matter as the main matter is seized before the Tribunal in the pending application. We do not find any occasion to interfere in an order of this -6- nature in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the petitioner to move the matter before the Tribunal also for expeditious disposal of the main matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NG*