IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.32408-32409/2017 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
1. SRI G.C.SHANKARAMURTHY S/O LATE K.CHANNABASAPPA AGE 58 YEARS OCC:ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.3, PWD SUB-DIVISION CHANNAGIRI – 577 550 R/AT PWD QUARTERS CHANNAGIRI – 577 550 2. SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE RAJANNA AGE 47 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER PRESENTLY WORKING AT CITY CORPORATION DAVANAGERE – 577 004 R/AT NO.120, SARVAMANGALA NILAYA SUB-RING ROAD NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE – 577 004 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.MANJUNATH RAO BHONSLE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.1, 4TH FLOOR COFFEE BOARD BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY MS.M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1; SRI M.R.C RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI MALLIKARJUN C.BASAREDDY, SPECIAL GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN A.NOS.1317 AND 1318 OF 2017 DATED 1.7.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND FURTHER TO ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore rejecting petitioners’ Application Nos.1317 & 1318/2017. The said applications were filed before the Tribunal by the petitioners to quash the order of the State Government dated 15.11.2016 bearing ¸ÀASÉåB d¸ÀAE 156 ¸ÉÃE« 2016, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ entrusting holding of departmental enquiry against the petitioners to upa-lokayukta in respect of the misconduct referred to therein. A copy of the articles of charge dated 31.03.2017 is at Annexure-C. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners had also sought for quashing of the report of upa-lokayukta-1 dated 16.09.2016 and communications dated 15.11.2016 and 20.12.2016 of the State Government to respondent No.2 to register criminal cases against the petitioners for recovery of Rs.1,96,65,412/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Six Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Twelve Only).
2. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the record.
3. The Tribunal, on a detailed consideration of the matter, has rejected the petitioners’ aforesaid applications with the following reasoning:
“5. As per the Agreement dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure A1) entered into between the Contractor (Motichand S.Daragashetti) and the Executive Engineer, KNNL No.5 Bhadra Canal Division, Davanagere, for the work relating to “Package Construction of Concrete Roads and Box Drains at S.C. Colony in Kallapur, Yettinhalli, Havanagi, Byatnai, Shyadaguppi and Arshinaguppi villages of Hanagal Taluk in Haveri District”, it is not disputed that the Applicants were in-charge of the said work. On the basis of complaint given by one Anantharaj Havalannanavar to the Lokayukta Institution, the matter was got investigated and the Lokayukta Institution made a recommendation to Government for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicants for committing misconduct under the Conduct Rules as well as criminal action for recovery of the loss caused to the Government. So far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the Lokayukta Institution has nominated the Inquiry Officer who is yet to frame charges and hold inquiry against the applicants. The matter is still at the initial stage of holding inquiry. The Applicants will have fair opportunity to putforth their defence before the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority. No final “order” has been passed adverse to the interest of the Applicants. It is well settled that the Tribunal has only power of judicial review of the administrative action of the Authorities on complaints relating to service conditions of employees. Judicial review is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or Tribunal. It is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. In the instant case, no order prejudicial to the interests of the Applicants has been passed nor is there any infringement of any of the right of the Applicants. It is for the Government to decide what action should be taken against a Government servant for certain misconduct. In this regard, it is useful to quote the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. S.SUBRAMANIAM, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 509:
“The Tribunal is not a court of appeal. The power of judicial review of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India was taken away by the power under article 323-A and invested the same in the Tribunal by Central Administrative Tribunals Act. It is settled law that the Tribunal has only power of judicial review of the administrative action of the appellant on complaints relating to service conditions of employees. It is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence have no application for the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, it is settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or Tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence.”
In the light of the aforesaid decision, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders relating to departmental inquiry.”
4. We find no error in the above reasoning of the Tribunal to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, if any criminal case is registered against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the criminal proceeding in accordance with law.
Petitions dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB