IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.4371 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN :
SMT. K. SHAILAVATHY DAUGHTER OF SRI SANNATHAMMANNA K. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, JUNIOR SCIENTIFIC OFFICER T. B. SANITORIAM HOSPITAL, COWL BAZAR, BELLARY, RESIDING AT NO 59, LIG, KHB COLONY, MOKA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BELLARY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SCIENTIFIC OFFICER AND GOVERNMENT ANALYST DRUG CONTROLS DEPARTMENT, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001. ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI I. TARANATH POOJARY, A.G.A.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2998 OF 2012 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner has assailed the correctness of order dated 21.11.2017 in Application No.2998 of 2012 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for the sake of convenience). By the said order, the Application filed by the petitioner assailing the minor punishment of censure has been affirmed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that when the petitioner was working as a Junior Scientific Officer in T.B. Sanitoriam Hospital, Ballari, Charge Memo was issued to her for an inquiry under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for the sake of brevity).
Two charges were framed against her. A departmental inquiry was conducted and ultimately by order dated 12.09.2011 punishment of censure was imposed on her. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Application No.2998 of 2012 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has dismissed the Application. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been preferred.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the respondent, on advance notice, and perused the material on record.
4. Two contentions are raised by the petitioner’s counsel; firstly, he submitted that when the inquiry against the petitioner was initiated under Rule 11 of the Rules, show-cause notice ought to have been issued to her before imposing any penalty against her. Secondly, during the pendency of the inquiry against the petitioner, promotions were made to the higher post and juniors of the petitioners were promoted and as a result petitioner’s case was not considered. That in view of punishment of censure imposed against her, her promotion has been delayed. He contended that if this Court were to set aside the punishment of censure imposed on the petitioner, she would be entitled to seek promotion from the day her junior was promoted.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondent submitted that the department has taken a lenient view in the matter and that there is no merit in the writ petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, we note that although departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 11 of the Rules, which is meant for imposition of a major penalty, ultimately a minor penalty of censure has been imposed. In such an event, the issuance of a second show-cause notice does not arise at all. Further it is a coincidence that when the departmental inquiry was being conducted against the petitioner herein promotion process was initiated and since the inquiry was pending against the petitioner, her junior was considered for the promotional post and promoted. Even if the case of the petitioner was considered and a sealed cover process was implemented, the same would not have enured to the benefit of the petitioner as ultimately the inquiry resulted in the imposition of punishment of censure.
7. Further we note that having regard to the fact that charge No.2 was proved, only minor penalty of censure has been imposed. That ought to be a relief to the petitioner as the department has taken a lenient view in the matter. We find no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hnm