IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.58090 OF 2018 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
DR. RAJVIR PRATAP SHARMA, IPS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DPAR (SERVICES) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH INTERIM ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN O.A.NO.170/1891/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AS THE SAME IS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Challenging the impugned notice issued by the State, the petitioner filed O.A.No.170/1891/2018 before the Tribunal. He sought for an interim stay of the said notice. By the impugned order, the Tribunal was of the view that there is no need to grant the interim order and hence, granted time to the respondent to file its reply. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed.
2. Sri.D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner’s Counsel contends that, virtually, a second round of litigation is commenced by the respondent. That the impugned Articles of Charges were also the subject matter in the earlier writ petition, which was set aside by the order of this Court dated 05.10.2018 in Writ Petition No.5844 of 2017. Therefore, only to harass the petitioner, the proceedings are sought to be initiated.
3. The same is disputed by the respondent’s Counsel. He contends that the act committed by the petitioner is unbecoming of a Government servant and therefore, has violated Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Hence, he pleads that the petition be dismissed.
4. Heard learned Counsels.
5. What is sought to be challenged before the Tribunal is the show cause notice issued under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The charges against the petitioner, prima facie, is that he has addressed a communication which would indicate that it is unbecoming of a Government servant. We have considered the same. We do not wish to record any findings on the contention advanced as it is for the Tribunal to decide the same.
6. Further it is suffice to hold that, so far as proceeding further in the matter is concerned, the same would lead to miscarriage of justice. Prima facie, the material on record would indicate that the impugned show cause notice before the Tribunal appears to have already been considered in the earlier writ petition. However, that is also a matter to be decided by the Tribunal. We do not wish to express any view on the same. Therefore, in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice, we are of the view that the impugned show cause notice before the Tribunal requires to be stayed, until a final adjudication by the Tribunal.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 27.10.2018 vide Annexure-A5 passed by the respondent, is stayed. The interim order shall continue till the disposal of the matter before the Tribunal.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-