IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI W.P.No.11947/2017 (S – KAT) BETWEEN :
SRI B.CHUNCHEGOWDA S/O LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS NOW R/AT NIDDAGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI MANDYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI S.V.NARASIMHAN, ADV.) AND :
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT CHICKMAGALUR-577101.
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE WESTERN RANGE MANGALORE-575001 D.K. DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P.SREENIVAS, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 07.10.2016 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.2966/2004 OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, AND PERUSE THE SAME; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2016 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.2966/2004 OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 7.10.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short), Bangalore in Application No.2966/2004 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner confirming the orders dated 11.8.2003 and 9.2.2004 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner was working as an Armed Head Constable in District Armed Force in Chickmagalur District, Chickmagalur. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.170/1996 of Basavanahalli Police Station, Chickmagalur and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. Joint departmental enquiry was initiated by the respondent against the petitioner and another wherein seven charges were framed by the enquiry officer. In the first round before the Tribunal, the petitioner had questioned the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him on the ground that a criminal case had also been filed on the very same charges. The enquiry was stayed by the Tribunal on 28.4.1998 but later, disciplinary proceedings were allowed to be continued. Subsequently, on the Application No.734/2000 filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the enquiry officer to conclude the proceedings, a direction was issued to complete the enquiry within six months accordingly, the 1st respondent ordered for a joint enquiry. In the meantime, the petitioner was convicted by the competent criminal Court on 3.3.2003 on the very same charges. Accordingly the petitioner was dismissed as per the order dated 11.8.2003 issued by the respondent No.1 exercising the powers under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965. The petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority as per the order dated 9.2.2004. On further appeal by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting the petitioner for the offences under sections 448, 384, 506 and 509 of IPC, the same stood confirmed by this court in terms of the order dated 23.6.2010. The Tribunal having considered the nature of the charges leveled against the petitioner and the conviction order against the very same charges by the criminal court confirmed by the appellate court has dismissed the application. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Authorities have failed to comply with Rules 6 and 8 of the Rules 1965. Disciplinary proceedings were not concluded in terms of Section 23 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. It was further argued that Rule 9 of the Rules contemplates special procedure in certain cases. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the tenor of the Rules vis-à-vis Section 23 of the Act.
4. Learned AGA justifying the impugned order submitted that the charges are grave in nature. The Disciplinary Authority has rightly exercised the power under Rules 6 and 8 of the Rules to dismiss the petitioner from service based on the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge which has been confirmed in the Criminal Appeal No.768/2003 (D.D.23.06.2010). The Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal has extensively considered the matter while dismissing the case and the same deserves to be confirmed, rejecting the Writ Petition.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur has convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 448, 384, 506 and 509 of IPC which has been confirmed by this court in Crl. Appeal No.768/2003 (D.D.23.06.2010). The Appellate Authority has referred to the Government order dated 26.6.2006 wherein guidelines have been issued regarding disciplinary action to be taken against a Government employee who was punished by the Criminal Court. Proviso (i) of Rule 9 of the Rules reads thus:
“Special Procedure in certain cases – Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 6, 7 and 8 – (i) where a penalty is imposed on a Police Officer on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.”
7. A reading of this Rule with the Government order dated 26.6.2006 would make it clear that if a Government employee is subjected to punishment by the court without waiting for the decision in the appeal filed, if any, in terms of the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the order of dismissal could be passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India makes it clear that no such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed; provided further that this clause shall not apply (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.
8. The charge sheet issued under Rules 6 and 8 of the Rules reads thus:
“Sub: Regarding Joint Departmental Enquiry ordered against AHC.19 Chunchegowda, DLR and ACP.100 M.Narayana, D.L.R. for their immorality, illegal and inhuman misbehavior.
Ref: 1) Basavanahalli Police Station Case No.170/96 filed Under Section 448-376-506-384 read with 34 of IPC.
2) Investigation Report No.CPI/CKM/ PETITIONER/100/97-98 dated 29.7-1997 of the Circle Inspector of Police, City Circle.
Preamble: By examining the report referred above, the following allegations against AHC.19 Chunchegowda, and ACP.100 M.Narayana, working in Chikkamagaluru District Armed Reserved Wing, are found true on the face of it.
Indictments:
1) You AHC.19 Chunchegowda, DLR and ACP.100 M.Narayana, D.L.R., Chikkamagaluru, have entered the house of APC.114 Manjunatha Raju who is residing in the Ramanahalli Police Quarters of Chikkamagaluru City, illegally from backside in the guise of giving a letter at 10.00 pm when Smt.Girija was sleeping in the house with her children when Manjunatha was not in the house and forced her for immoral relationship.
2) You AHC.19 Chunchegowda, DLR and ACP.100 M.Narayana, D.L.R., Chikkamagaluru, have illegally entered the house Smt.Girija, W/o Manjunatha, during night with a malafide intention of having forcible sexual intercourse and when it was not possible, you, A.C.P. Narayana, have made her to drink some substance which gives intoxication and forcibly had sexual intercourse one after the another and taken vulgar photos at the time of sexual intercourse.
3) You AHC.19 Chunchegowda, after having forcible sexual intercourse with Smt.Girija, W/o Manjunatha, have gone to the house at 10-00 – 11.00 am when she was alone and told her about the photos taken at the time of forcible sexual intercourse and threatened that he will kill her husband and children if she tells her husband that you have got negatives of the photos and forcibly taken Rs.300 from her. Apart from this, you have gone to her house often when her husband was not in the house and extorted money of Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- now and then.
4) You AHC.19 Chunchegowda, D.A.R., keeping the illegal relationship photos with Smt.Girija, one day, you have taken one knife and gun and posed life threat to her and extorted a sum of Rs.5000/- and Rs.6000-00 forcibly.
5) You AHC.19 Chunchegowda, and ACP.100 M.Narayana are working in the Disciplinary Police Department and without working for the interest of the general public, you have forcibly had sexual intercourse with Smt.Girija, wife of your colleague Manjunatha and brought difference of opinion in their married life and your are responsible for spoiling their married life and when the truth came to light, you are absconding immediately i.e. from 23.9.1996 and committed unfair crime and brought disrespect to the Department.
6) You AHC.19 Chunchegowda, and ACP.100 M.Narayana are the prime Accused in the Basavanahalli Police Station Case No.170/96 filed under Section 448-376-506-384 read with 34 of IPC, you were arrested and undergone judicial enquiry and you are ineligible to work in the Disciplinary Department.
7) Due to the misdeed committed by yourself AHC.19 Chunchegowda and ACP.100 M.Narayana, D.A.R., Chikkamagaluru, to Smt.Girija, W/o Manjunatha, A.C.P. Manjunatha Raju, due to insult in the society and pain committed suicide for which you are directly or indirectly responsible.”
9. It could be seen from the charges for which the petitioner has been convicted being serious and grave in nature, the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge empowers the Disciplinary Authority to exercise the power under Rule 9 of the Rules. The petitioner being the police official, his conduct is heinous in nature. It is well settled that if the source of power is vested with the Authority, quoting a wrong provision or non-mentioning the provision would not vitiate the order. The Disciplinary Authority as sell as the Appellate Authority have assigned cogent reasons for passing he order of dismissal and no exception can be found with the same. Indeed such power of dismissal vests with the Disciplinary Authority as per Rules 6, 8 and 9 r/w Section 23 of the Act.
10. The conviction on the same criminal charges being approved by the Hon’ble High Court, setting aside the orders impugned would certainly send a wrong signal to the Society. Having regard to these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application which cannot be faulted with.
Writ Petition is bereft of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
Dvr: