IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6371 OF 2019 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJ BASAVANNAYYA SWAMY S/O BASAVANNAYYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICE, JEVARGI, KALABURGI-588105.
R/AT #11-49, PLOT No.132, DOCTORS COLONY, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURGI DISTRICT, KALABURGI-588105.
… PETITIONER (BY MR. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE HON’BLE LOKAYUKTHA REP. BY REGISTRAR M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.
2. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRY-7 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BANGALORE-1.
… RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 SERVED THROUGH HAND SUMMONS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS DATED 23.06.2018 (VIDE ANNEXURE-H) PASSED BY R-2 TO PERUSE THE SAME & QUASH BY AN ORDER OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRITS BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOKAYUKTHA DATED 23.06.2018 (VIDE ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
None appears for the Respondents, though served.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 23.06.2018 passed by Respondent No.2. The petitioner also seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the enquiry initiated against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges against the petitioner in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are similar. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘PREM NATH BALI VS. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER’, (2015) 16 SCC 415. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to paragraph No.28 of the aforesaid decision and submitted that the enquiry should be completed in a time bound manner.
3. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
4. From perusal of the order dated 23.06.2018, it is evident that respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order has not considered the question whether or not the charges leveled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are the same or not? From perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. Therefore, respondent No.2 was required to examine the aforesaid question while dealing with the prayer of the petitioner to drop the departmental proceedings. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into account by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to decide the prayer of the petitioner to drop the departmental proceedings, in view of his acquittal in the criminal case by taking into account the question whether or not the charges in the criminal case and departmental enquiry are same or not in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra).
5. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.