IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION No.33098/2018 (S – KAT) Between: S.Rajamurthy, S/o late B.Shankaraiah, Age: 51 years, Presently working as District Programme Officer, Mandya.
R/o No.KT 806/2, II A Cross, Chamundeswari Nagar, Mandya – 571 401.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Shivaramu H.C., Advocate) And :
1. State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, M.S.Building, Gate No.3, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, By its Principal Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
3. The Director of Women and Child Development Department, M.S.Building, Gate No.3, Bangalore – 560 001.
4. Departmental Promotion Committee, Department of Women and Child Development and Differently abled And Senior Citizen Empowerment, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001. By its Chairman and Principal Secretary.
...Respondents (By Miss N.Anitha, HCGP) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.9587/2016 marked as Annexure – B and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, Narayana Swamy J, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore to issue mandamus directing the respondents to give promotion to him to the post of Deputy Director by opening the sealed cover and also to quash show cause notice dated 6.8.2015 issued by respondent No.1. The Tribunal by its order dated 31.5.2018 has disposed of the application with a direction to the respondents to conclude the enquiry proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and based thereupon to consider case for promotion of the applicant. Since the respondents have not concluded the enquiry within the stipulated time, this writ petition is filed with a direction to set aside the enquiry, to open the sealed cover and promote him.
2. The facts of the case are that between 1.10.2014 and 30.10.2014 he states that he was in - charge programme officer as the said post was vacant during the said period. The allegation against him is that while purchasing food articles, he has not complied with mandatory requirement. A charge sheet has been served on 6.8.2015 alleging that he has contravened direction of the department in examining the food articles and also not forwarded the same for chemical examination test which ultimately violates Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of the KCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 which is a misconduct. For which, he made a representation stating that he was working only incharge Programme Officer for the period between 10.10.2014 and 30.10.2014 only for one month. One A.V. Mathew was working at the relevant point of time.
The allegations can be attributed against him and enquiry should have been conducted against him.
3. On the contrary, he has also been issued with charge sheet and in the enquiry he states that petitioner is an official witness. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submits that there is irregularity in conducting the enquiry and there is also delay in concluding enquiry and the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While disposing of the application before the KAT, the Tribunal directed the respondent to conclude the inquiry within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thereupon consider the case for promotion of the petitioner. The enquiry has not yet commenced. Under these circumstances, the enquiry is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, the learned High Court Govt.Pleader submits that the articles of charges was rightly issued on 6.8.2015 and his promotion was not considered by the DPC . The issue of promotion of the petitioner has been kept in a sealed cover. The enquiry was held in time and there is no delay on the part of the respondents. If he has committed any irregularities or misconduct during the period between 1.10.2014 and 30.10.2014 it is for him to make available and see that he gets exonerated in the enquiry.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the order of the KAT and examined the article of charges. The articles of charges pertains to 14.10.2014. and in the articles of charges it is seen that he was addl. Incharge Programme Officer between 1.10.2014 and 30.10.2014. The petitioner held additional charge for a period of 30 days. The articles of charges further discloses that the articles of charges have been issued on 14.10.2014 for not supervising the supply or food materials to Madduru Taluk, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya Taluk, Child development Project Dudda and Pandavapura and other places. The articles of charges have been served on the petitioner on 10.2.2015. The respondents should have concluded the enquiry before filing the charge sheet and charge sheet could have been issued after satisfying the reply given by the petitioner,. The same has not been complied with by the respondents. Secondly the Tribunal has disposed of the application directing the respondents to conclude the inquiry within a period of 6 months. Even this is also not done by the respondents. The articles of charges framed on 6.8.2014 and enquiry officer was appointed on 13.11.2018. The respondents were not serious in concluding the enquiry. The Tribunal directed to conclude the enquiry within 6 months, the same has not been concluded. The nature of allegations, the way in which enquiry proceeded and not completed within the stipulated time after serving articles of charges on 6.8.2015, shows that the respondents are not serious.
Under these circumstance, we hold that articles of charges is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion without opening the sealed cover.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE nm