IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH 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 NO.56055/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI GNANA PREMAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O G.M.SUDARSHAN WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS OFFICE HASSAN ...PETITIONER (BY SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M.S.BUILDINGS DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDINGS DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (ENQUIRIES–VII) I/C KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDINGS DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 4. THE KARNATAKA UPA-LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S.BUILDINGS, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.6835/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 23.11.2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in the petitioner’s Application No.6835/2017.
2. We have heard Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. The impugned order dated 23.11.2017 reads as follows:
“Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is before this Tribunal challenging the order of dismissal dated 02/11/2017 (at Annexure-A17).
On the basis of the material placed on record, the Inquiry Officer as well as Hon’ble Upalokayukta have reached to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the applicant is proved. Consequently, after issuing 2nd show-cause notice to the applicant, the impugned order has been passed. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not yet relieved from service though the impugned order at Annexure-A17 has been served on him and therefore the impugned order imposing penalty of dismissal may be stayed.
He has not produced any document to show that the applicant is still in service after the order of dismissal was served. Apart from that the criminal case against the applicant in Special Case No.9/2012 is still pending on the file of Sessions Judge at Hassan. Copy of the deposition of PW1 - complainant furnished by learned Counsel for the applicant reveals that PW1-complainant was examined in the Special Case No.9/2012 on 21/03/2014, but he has been recalled for further cross examination on 24/07/2015, 28/08/2015, 15/07/2016, 02/12/2016 and on 17/03/2017. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that there is no good ground to grant interim relief. Accordingly, interim prayer is rejected.
Learned AGA is directed to take notice for R1. Sri Mallikarjuna C. Basareddy, Panel Advocate, is directed to take notice for R2 to R4.
Granted two months time to file reply statement.”
4. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the aforesaid application expeditiously. Having regard to the facts of the case, we accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and accordingly, request the Tribunal to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner expeditiously.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE hkh.