Karnataka High Court
Sri. M.P. Vrushabendraswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB
WP No. 22527 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 22527 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.P. VRUSHABENDRASWAMY,
S/O H.B. PHANIYACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DIST.
R/A GOVT. REVENUE INSPECTOR QUARTERS,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AND TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DIST-577 213.
...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. MALLE GOWDA H P.,ADVOCATE)
SHARADA
VANI B
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB
WP No. 22527 of 2023
3. M. HARISH HALLI S/O MANJAPPA,
R/O THABALA VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DIST-577 213.
R3 IS DELETED V.C.O DATED 06.11.2024
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. ASHWINI S HALADY., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V.C.O DATED 6.11.2024, R3 IS DELETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I)
ISSUE AN ORDER/DIRECTION OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ALLEGED COMPLIANT DATED
04.07.2018 AT ANNEXURE-F, IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING No.
KAM E 13 BDP 2021, DATED 06/11/2021 AT ANNEXURE-W
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES
AND ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS IN No. Uplok-1/DE/202/202/ARE-
7 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 02/12/2021 AT
ANNEXURE-X AND THE FINAL ORDER DATED 27.03.2023
BEFORE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION No. 115/2022, AT ANNEXURE-AD AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB
WP No. 22527 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Petitioner, a Revenue Inspector working in the Revenue Department, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 27.05.2023, whereby his Application No.115/2022 has been negatived. In the said Application, he had called in question the initiation of disciplinary proceedings vide Articles of Charge dated 2.12.2021 on the ground that the same was time barred and that there was no prima facie case of misconduct even if allegations are taken at their face value.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made two principal submissions for invalidating the order of Tribunal and the institution of disciplinary proceedings as under:
(i) The disciplinary proceedings could not have been instituted, the same having been barred by time under section 8(3)(d) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984; and -4- NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB WP No. 22527 of 2023
(ii) The alleged act of forming layout in his own land and selling the sites carved out therein do not require any prior permission and that even if the layout has been formed in violation of law, the position would not be different. He relied upon a Coordinate Bench decision in M.R.VADDAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2021 (3) KCCR 2097.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the government and the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Lokayukta resist the petition making submission in support of the Tribunal's order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. They argue that the misconduct of a government servant need not necessarily relate to the discharge of his official duties; if rule of law is violated and thereby some benefit is sought to be obtained, that also amounts to misconduct though the alleged act does not fall within the parameters of official duties. In support of that, he banks upon the Apex Court decision in S.GOVINDA MENON vs. UNION OF INDIA, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 66. Learned Senior Panel Counsel drew our -5- NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB WP No. 22527 of 2023 attention to Rule 23(2) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 to contend that even for disposal of property of the kind, permission of the competent authority is a must.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Rule 23(2) of 1966 Rules reads as under:
"2) No Government Servant or any member of his family shall, except with the previous knowledge of the prescribed authority, acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family:
Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained by the Government Servant if any such transaction is -
(i) with a person having official dealing with the Government Servant, or
(ii) otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer.
["Provided further that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to the transactions entered into by a member of the family of the Government -6- NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB WP No. 22527 of 2023 Servant out of his or her own funds (including Gifts, Inheritance, etc.,) as distinct from the funds of the Government Servant himself/herself, in his or her own name and in his or her own right."]"
(b) The text of the above Rule does not lend credence to the submission of learned Panel Counsel and the learned AGA that in all cases where the sites formed in the land of a public servant are being disposed off, prior permission of the competent authority is a must. Right to property is no longer a Fundamental Right after 44th Amendment to the Constitution, is true. However, the said right continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300A. Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edition by P J Fitzgerald says that ownership is a bundle of rights and right to alienate the property is one of them. When such a right enjoys constitutional guarantee, restriction if any on that has to be construed strictly. Such rights do avail to the civil servants too. Viewed from this angle, there is no requirement of prior permission.
(c) We add that though the petitioner had acquired the subject property with permission of the authority, it cannot -7- NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB WP No. 22527 of 2023 be gainfully argued that permission is required as a matter of course for disposing off the same.
5. The vehement submission of learned AGA that the layout has been formed in the subject land in violation of legal prescription and therefore, that itself would amount to misconduct, is too farfetched an argument. His reliance on S.GOVINDA MENON supra, does not support such a view wherein, the Apex Court at para 6 has inter alia observed as under:
"...It is therefore open to the Government to take disciplinary proceedings against the appellant in respect of his acts or omissions which cast a reflection upon his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty as a member of the Service..."
In other words, the act complained of should have the potential to cause a reflection upon the integrity or good faith of the delinquent employee. In the absence of such elements, even if law is infringed, that per se may not amount to a misconduct warranting a disciplinary enquiry. For example, if a public servant wrongfully parking his -8- NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB WP No. 22527 of 2023 vehicle commits a petty offence and that cannot be a ground for disciplinary action since the act of wrongfully parking a vehicle does not reflect on his integrity or good faith that are expected in the discharge of public duties.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the institution of disciplinary proceedings were time barred since the alleged act of misconduct was of 2012, has also force. Ordinarily, section 8(3)(d) of the 1984 Act prescribes a period of five years as limitation. Of course, there is some legal literature availing to hold that this limitation is not a Thumb Rule but the circumstances that take the Thumb from the Rule are not stated while instituting the belated disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the Coordinate Bench decision in M.R.VADDAR supra comes to the aid of petitioner. The submission of Panel Counsel that immediately after receiving the complaint, the subject proceedings have been instituted, cannot be accepted without manhandling the text of section 8(3)(d). Courts too interpret law and ordinarily, do not make it. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:50380-DB WP No. 22527 of 2023 In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; the impugned order of the Tribunal having been set at naught, a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the institution of subject disciplinary enquiry and petitioner is relieved from all possible ignominy.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18