IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL WRIT PETITION NO.25529/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
M.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE MALLAIAH R/O 11TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571 401 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTHERN RANGE MYSURU-560 104 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAVALLI SUB-DIVISION, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-E THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.3175/2016 DATED: 30.05.2017. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.3175/2016 DATED:30.05.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALSO CONSEQUENTIAL DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AS PER CHARGE MEMO DATED:05.10.2015 AND DATED:10.10.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A4 AND A5 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.08.2017 FOR ORDER, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R K.S.MUDAGAL, J.:
The question involved in this case is whether the third respondent is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner?.
2. The petitioner was recruited in the department of Home, State of Karnataka i.e., first respondent in the year 2005 as Sub-inspector. On serving at various places he was posted as Sub-inspector of Mandya Rural Police Station during the year 2014-2015. Vide notification dated 05.08.2015 he was transferred to DCB Madikeri. He was relieved from Mandya Rural Police Station on 10.08.2015. He did not report at DCB Madikeri. Vide modified transfer order at Annexure-A1 dated 15.09.2015, he was transferred to Forest Mobile Squad, Kollegala. He reported at Forest Mobile Squad Kollegala on 18.09.2015 as per Annexure R-5.
3. The third respondent vide order dated 05.10.2015 at Annexure-A4 in exercise of the power under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965/1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KSP(DP) Rules’ for short) ordered to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, on the allegations of dereliction of duty amounting to misconduct. Under order at Annexure-A4, third respondent appointed fourth respondent as the specially empowered authority to prepare the charge list, conduct Inquiry and submit the report.
4. In pursuance of the order at Annexure-4, the fourth respondent served Annexure-A5 dated 10.10.2015 the articles of charge and the statement of imputation on the petitioner. The charge is that, the petitioner despite the information of the likelihood of occurrence of crime failed to take necessary steps, which caused the murder of one Madappa. The petitioner submitted his defence statement Annexure –A6 dated 23.11.2015 to the articles of charge. In Annexure-A6 he denied the articles of charge and statement of imputation and further contended that the third respondent is not competent to initiate disciplinary inquiry against him.
5. The petitioner filed application No.3175/2016 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred as ‘Tribunal’ for short) for quashing Annexures-4 and 5 namely the order dated 5.10.2015 initiating disciplinary inquiry and the charge memo dated 10.10.2015 issued by the fourth respondent.
6. The petitioner questioned the competency of the third respondent to initiate disciplinary inquiry on the following grounds:
i) Before the order at Annexures-4 and 5, on 15.09.2015 he was transferred to Forest Mobile Squad, Kollegala. As per Annexure-R-1 Government Order No. HD 221 PEG 72 dated 15.12.1972 Deputy Inspector General of Police (Forest Cell) is the administrative head for the Officers/Officials working in the Forest Mobile Squad;
ii) As per Rule 4 read with entry 4 to Schedule to the KSP(DP) Rules, the Deputy Inspector General of Police is the prescribed disciplinary authority for imposing of major penalties to the officers in the cadre of PSI.
7. The Tribunal, by the impugned order Annexure-E dated 30.05.2017 dismissed the petitioner’s application on the ground that the third respondent had initiated the preliminary Inquiry before the transfer of the petitioner from Mandya, therefore as per Rule 4(2) of KSP (D) Rules respondent No.3 is competent initiate disciplinary Inquiry against the petitioner.
8. Third respondent has issued Annexure-A4 the order of initiation of the disciplinary Inquiry acting under Rule 6 of the KSP(DP) Rules. Rule 6 reads as follows:
“6. Procedure for imposing major penalties.-
(1) No order imposing on a Police Officer any penalty specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 shall be passed except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided (2) The Disciplinary Authority or any authority empowered by it in this behalf (hereinafter in this rule referred to as ‘specially empowered authority’) shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges, together, with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Police Officer and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority or the specially empowered authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person.”
9. Explanation to Rule 6 says that the expression to disciplinary authority for the purpose of Rule (2) & (3) includes the authority competent under the Rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clause (a) and (c) of Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Police Act. Section 23 (a & c) deal with the minor punishment and Section 23(b) deals with the major penalties.
10. Under Rule 2 (e) of the KSP(DP) Rules disciplinary authority is defined as follows:
“2 (e) ‘Disciplinary Authority’ means the authority competent under Section 23 or under these rules to impose on a member of the police force any of the penalties specified in sub-section (1) of Section 23;”
11. Rule 4 KSP(DP) Rules prescribes the disciplinary authority for the purpose of Section 23(1) as the officers mentioned in column No.4 of the Schedule. It is useful to quote Rule 4 which reads as follows:
“4.Disciplinary Authority.- For purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 23 the Officers specified in column(4) of the Schedule and the Officers superior in rank to such Officers, shall be the prescribed Officers competent to impose the penalties specified in column (5) on Police Officers specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof.”
12. Entry 4 in schedule to KSP(DP) Rules deals with Officers of rank of sub-inspectors to which Cadre petitioner belongs to. As per the said Rules, the prescribed officer to impose major penalty is the concerned Deputy Inspector General of Police to whom the Police officer is sub- ordinate at the time of taking action.
13. It is no doubt true that, the Forest cell was established under the Government Order dated 15.12.1972 as at Annexure-R1 and as per the said order the special squad had to work under the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Forest Cell). At the time of initiation of the disciplinary Inquiry against the petitioner, he was serving in Forest Mobile Squad of Kollegala which is established under the Government Order dated 7.10.1980 Annexure-R2.
14. Under Government Order No. HD 253 POP 1992,Bangalore dated 10.12.1992 the Government up- graded the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Forest Cell) to the post of Inspector General of Police (Forest Cell). Annexure-R3, the Organizational Chart as per Standing Order 1008 shows that the Forest Mobile Squad, Mysore, Mandya, Hassan, Kodagu and Chamarajanagar districts are brought under the administrative control of Inspector General of Police (Southern range) Mysore. Annexure-C5 dated 28.09.2016 petitioner’s own document also indicates the same.
15. Third respondent and Administrative Officer of the third respondent have filed affidavits stating that third respondent is the disciplinary authority for PSI of Forest Mobile Squad, Kollegala. Para 8 and 9 of affidavit of Administration officer reads as under:
“8…. It is respectfully submitted that the Special Police Squad which is now being named “Forest Mobile Squad” is a part of the Police Department, and the Inspector General of Police (Forest Cell) who has the Supervisory and Administrative control over the said squad, is also a part of the Police Department.
8. It is submitted that the Appointing Authority for the post of Police Sub-Inspector including the Forest Mobile Squad is the Inspector General of Police and the Disciplinary Authority as per the aforesaid Rule 4 is also Inspector General of Police.
9. That, the afore stated Government order dated 10.12.1992 was further modified as per the standing order 1008 dated 23-12-2014, which provides for a Forest Mobile Squad consisting of a Sub Inspector of Police in the District of Mysore, which is very much a part of the Police Department headed by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Mysore.”
(Emphasis supplied) 16. Standing Order No.1008 referred to supra has conferred the power of disciplinary authority on the third respondent in respect of the petitioner. The said executive order is not under challenge in this petition. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the third respondent is not competent to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner.
17. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that before the transfer of the petitioner from Mandya Rural Police Station preliminary Inquiry was initiated against him. It is true that the preliminary Inquiry does not amount to disciplinary Inquiry and that cannot be confused with disciplinary Inquiry as held by the Honorable Supreme Court in Champakalal Chimanlal Shah –vs- Union of India (1964) 5 SCR 190.
18. But despite such reasoning of the Tribunal, order at Annexures-A3 and A5 sustain in view of the discussion made above. So far as the merits of the charges, the petitioner has to contest that in the disciplinary Inquiry initiated against him. We find no grounds to interfere. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HR