IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50340 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI ANTHONY RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI ANTHONY NELSON HOOVER, SECOND DIVSION ASSISTANT, (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHATH BANGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, EAST ZONE, HBR LAYOUT SUB –DIVISION, H.B.R. B.D.A COMPLEX. BENGALURU - 560 043.
RESIDING AT NO.1340, 9TH CROSS, OPPOSITE TO JUBILEE SCHOOL, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 016.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR.P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. A.R.SHARADAMBA,AGA FOR R-1 (MA NOT FILED); SRI. K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OFFICE ORDER DTD.18.10.2019 ANNEXURE-K OF THE R.2 INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY WHICH HE HAS BEEN COMPULSORY RETIRED FROM SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent-BBMP does not much dispute that the subject matter of this writ petition being similar to the one in W.P.No.6573/2016 (S-RES), between SATISH vs. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, the principle procedure enunciated in para 3 of the judgment dated 02.08.2016 made therein are substantially applicable to the case of petitioner; para 3 of the same has the following text:
“3. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, I find that the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority and the punishment imposed suffers from apparent illegality, inasmuch as disciplinary authority ought to have independently examined the report of the enquiry officer by issuing notice to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the findings and after providing him an opportunity to submit his explanation to the findings. The Commissioner was required in law to consider the explanation/reply to be given by the delinquent in respect of findings recorded against him and thereafter, pass necessary orders. In the instant case, bypassing such mandatory requirement disciplinary authority has simply accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and has acted based on recommendation made by the Upalokayukta which is unsustainable in law.”
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for consideration afresh keeping in view the contents of para 3 of the aforesaid judgment in accordance with law within a period of three months.
It is needless to mention that the setting aside of impugned order of compulsory retirement shall automatically result into reinstatement of the petitioner. All other related contentions as to the treatment of the period of suspension and such other related questions are kept open.
If no decision is taken within the prescribed period the second respondent shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner for delay of every month in making the decision.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS