IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION No.47953/2018 (S-KAT) Between:
Shri. Kushab Lamani, Aged about 48 years, S/o Gangu Lamani, Kannada Lecturer, Government P.U.College, Jayawadagi, Tq-Basavanabagewadi, District: Vijayapur – 586 208. …Petitioner (By Sri. Veeresh M, Advocate) And :
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education Department, No.641, 6th Floor, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Registrar, Hon’ble Upa Lokayukta, M.S.Building, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.
3. The Additional Registrar (Enquiries – 11), Karnataka Lokayukta, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondents (By Smt. M.S.Prathima, AGA for R1) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 24.09.2018 vide Annexure – A passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.6868/2018 and allow the prayer prayed in the Application No.6868/2018 and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, Narayana Swamy J, passed the following:
ORDER Issuance of article of charges was challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and sought for quashing the enquiry on the ground that on the same charges, the criminal case was initiated and the same has ended in acquittal. Hence there is no necessity to proceed with the enquiry. The Tribunal by its order dated 24th September, 2018 rejected the application both on the point of delay and also on merit. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint and articles of charges framed against him are one and the same. Therefore, when the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, there is no necessity to continue the enquiry.
3. The learned AGA appearing for respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that in a case reported in 2014 (3) SCC 636 (M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd vs Girish V & Ors) it has been held that it is impermissible to have parallel proceedings. The relevant para 16 of the judgment reads thus:-
“16. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the Trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case to co-operate with the trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long time on account of non- availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order.”
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The articles of charges have been issued against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint and the enquiry against him is still pending. When such being the case, the same could not have been challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal on the ground that when in criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted, continuance of the enquiry proceedings is unnecessary. The parallel proceedings will be impermissible in law but acquittal of the petitioners in criminal case has nothing to do with the departmental enquiry. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate case at appropriate stage.
5. The learned AGA is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE Nm