IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13250/2018 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
1. RAJAMMA W/O LATE DYAMAIAH P, AGED AOBUT 55 YEARS 2. YASHODA.D.N D/O LATE DYAMAIAH.P AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 3. DIVYA.S.D D/O LATE DYAMAIAH P AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. RENUKA PRASAD.S.D S/O LATE DYAMAIAH P AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ALL THE PETITIONER’S ARE RESIDING AT#171, E & F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE – 570022.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.MOHAN B K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT.OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE HON’BLE LOKAYUKTA OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DIST MYSORE-570005 4. THE THASILDAR T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DIST, T.NARASIPURA-571124 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHILPA.S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1, R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.8578/2006 DATED 30.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased applicant by name Dyamaiah P., questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.8578/2006.
2. The facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The original applicant namely Dyamaiah P., was working as Deputy Tahsildar, Nada Kacheri, Belgola, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. One Sri D.Raju lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha Police, Mandya alleging that the applicant demanded a sum of Rs.300/- for issuance of mutation extract in respect of Sy.No.5 of Jakkanaguppe Village. Based on the said complaint, on 17.08.1999, the Lokayuktha Police conducted trap proceedings. Based on the trap proceedings, the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I in the office of the second respondent herein issued observation note and called for explanation of the applicant vide his note dated 06.02.2001. The applicant pursuant to the note dated 06.02.2001, offered his explanation by registered post. The first respondent entrusted for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The enquiry officer having framed articles of charges on 08.07.2003 and having secured the reply to the charges by the applicant, submitted his report on 31.12.2004 and in the said report, the enquiry officer held that the charges against the applicant were proved. Based on the report, the Lokayuktha recommended for dismissal of the applicant from service. The first respondent having received the recommendation, issued a show cause notice along with enquiry officer’s report calling upon the applicant to offer explanation within 15 days from the receipt of notice. Second show cause notice was also issued by the first respondent on 10.03.2006. The applicant submitted three representations to the first respondent after issuance of second show cause notice.
3. The applicant in continuation of earlier reply dated 27.03.2006 also submitted one more reply on 14.04.2006 and took a specific contention that the enquiry officer’s report is not related to the applicant and hence, the Upa-Lokayuktha’s order No.LOK/INQ/14A/108/2002-03 dated 29.01.2003 was incorrect and as such, question of making reference to the Upa-Lokayuktha’s letter or order is arbitrary and illegal.
4. The first respondent having examined the materials and the enquiry report, by order dated 19.12.2006, dismissed the applicant from service while accepting the recommendation of the Lokayuktha. The original applicant being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 19.12.2006 passed by the first respondent approached the Tribunal by filing original application No.8578/2006.
5. It is relevant to note that immediately after filing the application, the original applicant died on 29.06.2010 and the present petitioners who are the legal representatives were brought on record and they prosecuted the application. The grievance of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the Lokayuktha had no authority to initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant and as such the entire proceedings stood vitiated. The petitioners also contended that the trap proceedings conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mysuru in absence of any direction by Upa-Lokayuktha cannot be considered as investigation conducted by the Upa- Lokayuktha. Further contention was taken that enquiry officer while giving its finding has referred to two orders and the Government Order dated 03.01.2003 has nothing to do with the applicant’s case. The petitioners also challenged the order of the first respondent on the ground that no reasons are assigned for dismissal.
6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent supported the order passed by the first respondent. To refute the contentions of the petitioners, learned HCGP specifically contended that the Lokayuktha had the authority to conduct preliminary enquiry as well as departmental proceedings under Rule 11(3) to (23) of CCA Rules. Further, learned Government Pleader specifically contended that these objections were not raised during the course of enquiry.
7. The Tribunal having examined the material on record and having examined the disciplinary proceedings dismissed the application. While doing so, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the first respondent has considered the reply submitted by the applicant dated 27.03.2006, 03.04.2006, 06.04.2006 and 14.04.2006 and the dismissal from service is only after examining the recommendation of the Lokayuktha. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that mere wrong entry in the enquiry report would not come to the aid of the applicant since the remaining references and the findings in the report are well reasoned and in accordance with law and as such, the order passed by the first respondent does not suffer from any infirmities and would not warrant any interference. The Tribunal also took note of the contentions raised by the petitioners that the departmental proceedings cannot be proceeded till the criminal case pending in S.C.No.33/2000 was decided. The Tribunal relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in STRANGEN TOTOTEXTU INDIA PRIVATE LTD., vs. GIRISH V. & OTHERS reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636, recorded a finding that there is no legal bar to conduct a parallel enquiry. Based on the above set of conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to reject the application which is questioned before this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue that the second respondent has no authority to conduct investigation. Since the applicant was a Group-C employee and as such, the entire process of investigation is bad in the eye of law. The second ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioners would seek intervention of this Court is that the applicant was acquitted in the criminal case and as such, the dismissal order needs to be reversed by this Court. On facts, the petitioners’ counsel would submit that the complainant’s application for change of mutation entries was not seized or recovered from the applicant during the trap proceedings and this material aspect was not taken into consideration by the enquiry officer.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents.
10. On perusal of the entire material on record, the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Lokayuktha had no authority to conduct investigation is contrary to provisions of Rule 14-A Rule 11 and 11A of CCA rules 1957 which permits to initiate departmental enquiry against erring public servant and same is not sustainable. The next contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the original applicant was acquitted in criminal proceedings bearing Special Case No.33/2000 the first respondent was not justified in passing an order of dismissal from service. This contention is devoid of merits since the acquittal in a criminal proceedings would have no bearing wherein the doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to be established and the same principal cannot be extended to departmental proceedings. However, the material on record indicates that the enquiry Officer after affording an reasonable opportunity has in all examined six
deceased applicant for the cash amount and the cash amount received by the applicant in his office from the complainant is the very same currency notes which was the subject matter of entrustment mahazar and to which phenolphthalein powder was smeared thereby the link has been established between the currency notes, which were presented by the complainant in the Lokayuktha office and the currency notes which were seized from the possession of the applicant. This finding which is based on the clinching evidence has been undisturbed by the Tribunal which on re-appreciation of evidence has rejected the application. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities and as such, writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE CA/alb* Sd/- JUDGE