IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.7945 OF 2014 [S-KAT] BETWEEN:
H.T. JAYARAMAIAH, SON OF LATE H.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, WORKING AS POLICE INSPECTOR, C.C.B. BANGALORE, BENGALURU CITY. … PETITIONER [BY SRI. P.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR, GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU -560 002.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001. … RESPONDENTS [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 THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5482 OF 2012 DATED 16.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDERS OF R-1 IN ORDER DATED 25.05.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A11, R-2 ORDER DATED 04.07.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A8 AND ORDER OF R-3 DATED 03.10.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A6.
* * * * * THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.01.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, MOHAMMAD NAWAZ J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the Order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [‘Tribunal’ for brevity] in Application No.5482 of 2012, dated 16.12.2013 vide Annexure-‘C’; to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in Order No.OE 155 PoSiA 2010 dated 25.05.2012 vide Annexure-‘A11’, the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Order No.CB(8)/137/2009-10 dated 04.07.2010 vide Annexure-‘A8’ and the order of the 3rd respondent in Order No.20/DE-1/R6/2008 dated 03.10.2009 vide Annexure-‘A6’.
2. We have heard Sri. P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. I.Taranath Poojary, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The petitioner while working as Police Inspector at Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, was issued with a charge-sheet dated 10.10.2008, levelling two charges against him. Firstly, that he had recommended for issuance of Arms Licence to one Sri. S.Vasanth Kumar even though the father of the said person namely Sri. T.Nagaraj had a criminal background and secondly, that he had not taken steps during the election with regard to the persons, who are rowdy sheeters. The petitioner gave a reply dated 23.07.2009 to the Enquiry Officer, contending that the charges are vague and untenable. Not satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority initiated enquiry and subsequently, the Enquiry Officer on conclusion of the enquiry gave a report dated 25.07.2009, reporting that the charges are proved. The second show-cause notice dated 03.08.2009 was issued asking the petitioner to give a reply and the petitioner submitted his reply on 05.09.2009. On consideration of the reply, the Disciplinary Authority by Order dated 03.10.2009 vide Annexure-‘A6’ imposed penalty of reduction of the pay by three stages and ordering that the petitioner would earn increments after the said reduction period and also treating the period of suspension from 10.06.2008 to 19.09.2008 as period of suspension only.
4. Against the aforesaid Order dated 03.10.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent herein, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which also came to be dismissed vide Order dated 04.07.2010.
5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid Order before the 1st respondent herein and the 1st respondent vide Order dated 25.05.2012 modified the Order dated 03.10.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and imposed a penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner by three stages for a period of four years and that he would earn increments after the expiry of the penalty period of four years and the period of suspension from 10.06.2008 to 10.09.2008 to be treated as suspension only.
6. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.5482 of 2012 and the Tribunal by its Order dated 16.12.2013, dismissed the said application as devoid of merits.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges are vague and the respondents authorities have not given proper opportunity to the petitioner to lead his case and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner has placed sufficient material in support of his case and though he had taken precaution with regard to the rowdy sheeters, false charges have been alleged, which is illegal and therefore, conducting enquiry and imposition of punishment were unwarranted. It is further submitted that the authorities were not justified in imposing punishment though there is no material to prove the charges and the Tribunal without taking into consideration the grounds urged by the petitioner was not justified in dismissing his application and accordingly sought to allow the petition.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate justified the punishment imposed against the petitioner and submitted that the Authorities have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the reply submitted by the petitioner herein and therefore, the orders passed by the Authorities which are confirmed by the Tribunal are in accordance with law and no interference is called for and sought to dismiss the petition.
8. The charges leveled against the petitioner were that while he was working as a Police Inspector at Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, he recommended for issuance of Gun Licence to one Sri. S.Vasanth Kumar even though the father of the said person namely Sri. T.Nagaraj was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.77 of 2007 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In spite of having such knowledge of the pendency of the criminal case against the father of the applicant, the petitioner recommended for issue of Arms Licence to the applicant. Further that the petitioner had not taken steps during the election time with regard to the persons who were rowdy sheeters. The Enquiry Authority after examining 5 witnesses and 20 exhibits and after considering the defence of the petitioner, has held that the charges leveled against him are proved. The Disciplinary Authority on considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and also the explanation offered by the petitioner concurred with the findings and imposed penalty of reduction of pay by three stages and ordering that he would earn increments from the stage of reduction of pay and treating the period of suspension from 10.06.2008 to 19.09.2008 as period of suspension only. Even the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority confirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Revisional Authority having considered the entire material on record, modified the penalty.
9. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is that though the petitioner was asked to check the activities of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class rowdy sheeters, he has failed to discharge the said duty and further that in spite of having knowledge of pendency of the criminal case against the father of one Sri. S.Vasanth Kumar, who had applied for Arms Licence, the petitioner recommended for issue of Arms Licence to him. The findings in this regard is that if a heinous offence like murder is reported in the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the same will be made known to all the Police Stations and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he was not aware of the crime pending in Vidyaranyapur Police Station. The charges leveled against the petitioner and the defence taken by him have been considered by the Authority, which are taken note of by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has also taken into consideration the modification of the penalty imposed against the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
We find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*