IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.21825 OF 2019 (S-RES) Between:
Dr.B.C.Ravikumar, S/o Sri.B.S.Chennakeshavaiah, Aged about 52 years, Director, Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan-573 201.
(By Sri.Shashidhara, H.N., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Department of Family Welfare, Medical Education Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.
Represented by its Principal Secretary, 2. Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan-573 201 Represented by its Chief Administrative Officer, 3. Sri.H.R.Ramesh Kumar, S/o H.E.Ramappa, …Petitioner Shankarapuram, Near Railway Station, B.M. Road, Hassan-573 201.
4. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, 4th Floor, 5th Stage, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560 001. Represented by its Secretary, 5. The Director of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka, Anand Rao Circle, Bengaluru-560 009.
...Respondents (By Smt.M.S.Prathima, AGA for R1 and R5 Sri.P.M.Nayak, Advocate for R3 Service of notice to R4 held sufficient vide order dated 23.07.2019 R2 served but unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the entire proceedings before the R-1 pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2017 produced at Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed Annexures-A and B dated 15.07.2017 and 17.02.2017 respectively. Both documents are relating to appointment of a committee by respondent No.2 to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner that he has furnished fake documents for obtaining certain service benefits in the Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan. In this regard, roving enquiry is invoked from 2013 and it is one Dr.M.R.Suresh, who is behind the petitioner who was then working as Assistant Professor in respondent-Institution.
2. Some of the issues are adjudicated before various authorities, as it is evident from the records. Question of interference with Annexures-A and B at this juncture is impermissible and it is premature.
3. The Supreme Court in the case Union of India and another V/s. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 held that initiation of any proceedings/charge memo could be interfered only if there is any violation of statutory rules by an incompetent authority. Paragraph 13 of the judgment reads as under;
“13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board V/s. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director V/s. Mohammed Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa V/s. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore, State of U.P. V/s. Brahm Datt Sharma etc., 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show- cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.”
4. In the present petition, petitioner has not urged either competency or violation of any rules. Therefore, no interference is called for.
With the above observation, petition stands disposed of.
Concerned respondents are hereby directed to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, since petitioner is facing various allegations relating to production of fake documents in obtaining certain service benefits in the respondent-Institution.
Sd/- JUDGE SB