IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.3961 of 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI. H.RAMANJANEYA S/O LATE D.T.HANUMANTARAYYA, KAS, SENIOR GRADE (RETD.) AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT 1128, 17TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 7TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 034.
(BY SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, DR.BR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AFFAIRS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, DR.BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. HON’BLE LOKAYUKTHA KARNATAKA ... PETITIONER BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR.BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRY-III KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING, DR.BR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
(BY SMT.M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SMT.A.D.VIJAYA, ADV. FOR R3 & R4) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.5367/2017 BY ORDER DT:06.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DTD:30.03.2017 PASSED BY THE R-4 IN DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY NO.LOK/INQ/14-A/381/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-H BY ALLOWING THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE 12[3] REPORT ISSUED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA I.E. THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD:1.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND TO DIRECT THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN ENQUIRY MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R On the basis of allegations, a report dated 20th March, 2013 was submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1966 to initiate Departmental Enquiry and also intimate the action taken or action proposed to be taken on the report submitted by the Lokayutka, within three months. On considering the report of the Lokayukta, the Government has authorised the Lokayukta under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 to proceed further with the enquiry. It was mentioned in the enquiry report itself that the delinquent has retired from service on 31st December 2013. As per the order of the Government dated 01stAugust, 2013, an enquiry was initiated by the Lokayukta, the Articles of Charge has been framed on 01st October, 2013 and the Charge is as follows:
“CHARGE:
That you, DGO Sri H. Remanjaneya, KAS (Senior Grade), the then Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District (presently under suspension) demanded in your chamber of your office and accepted a bribe of Rs.50,000/- on 29.11.2010 from complainant Sri C. Narayanaswamy S/o late Chikonappa, No.5, Classic Colony, Banglapet, Bommasandra, Bangalore through one Sri Venkatesh Babu outside the DC Office compound on footpath Bangalore for giving permission to convert the land use of the land measuring 5.14 acres in sy.Nos.23/1, 23/2 and 26 of Timmasandra Village of Anekal Taluk to industrial purpose that is for doing an official act, and thereby you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and thus you are guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
2. The sum and substance of the Charge is that the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the very charge a criminal case was also initiated on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District (CCH 24), Bengaluru City in Spl. CC No.45 of 2011 and by the order dated 09th October, 2013, the petitioner has been discharged of the offence. On the basis of order passed by the Sessions Judge and also of the fact that the petitioner has retired from service, the learned counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the respondent to proceed further with enquiry since the petitioner has also retired from service. He further submits that the petitioner has also submitted a letter to the Government stating that he does not claim pensionary and also retirement benefits and hence there may be a direction to the respondents to drop the proceedings. Further, even in case if the request for dropping the proceedings is rejected, for the purpose of Rule 8 of the CCA Rules, no punishment could be imposed since the petitioner has already retired from service. The Articles of Charge does not pertain to any recovery and under the circumstance even there cannot be any proceedings with reference to recovery also. Hence, he filed this petition with a prayer to quash the proceedings Annexure-K dated 30thMarch, 2017 and also initiation of Departmental Enquiry dated 01st August, 2013.
4. On the other hand, Smt. A.D. Vijaya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to go scot-free since he has committed grave irregularities, which is a misconduct and for which he is supposed to be punished. Merely an acquittal in criminal case is not a ground to close the departmental enquiry. To substantiate her submissions, the learned counsel by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal No.7130 of 2009, submits the acquittal or discharge in criminal case may be on a different ground, since the criminal proceedings is on the basis of benefit of doubt and altogether under different circumstances, whereas the Departmental Enquiry stands on principle of preponderance of probabilities where, in case if the appointing authority satisfies that the delinquent has committed any misconduct that falls under the provisions of CCA Rules, then the delinquent official is liable to be punished. She also submits that it is the domain of the Government to decide as to whether the enquiry to be dropped or to be recalled.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt report has been submitted by the Lokayukta on 14th March 2013 to the Government that it is established during investigation that the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct for which the Government is to initiate action and further it is stated in the report that it is to be reported back to the Lokayukta as to the action taken in the case, within three months. Consequently, the report of the Lokayukta has been accepted by the Government and order has been passed on 01st August, 2103 to proceed further in the enquiry under Section 14-A of the CCA Rules. Consequent to the same, case has been registered and proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner. In the interregnum the petitioner made a request to the Respondent to drop the proceedings since he has been acquitted in criminal case in SC No.45 of 2011. The Government has not considered the request of the petitioner and the petitioner has approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the application. Hence, this petition.
6. On the basis of the facts of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel, it is clear that when a person is acquitted or discharged from a criminal case, it is well established provision of law as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a Departmental Enquiry is not to be closed down automatically. The grounds on which the criminal proceedings proceeds and concludes either resulting conviction or acquittal is altogether different which has nothing to do with the departmental proceedings. But the fact remains that if the charges, complaint, the list of witnesses and documents are one and the same, whether the judicial pronouncement prevails over the departmental proceedings, which is kept open, depends upon each individual case. But in the instant case the petitioner has already retired from service. Against a retired official, if proceedings, even if they are initiated during his service, cannot be permitted to proceed further, unless there is an Article of charge with reference to loss caused to the Government. From the Article of charge, which is extracted above, it is seen that there is no charge of loss caused by the petitioner. Under the circumstance, even there cannot be any recovery open to the Government. In that view of the matter, even if the Lokayukta is permitted to proceed further to conclude the enquiry, it ends up only as a formality and no useful purpose would be served since petitioner cannot be punished even if the enquiry ends up with proving the guilt, since he cannot be dismissed from service nor a punishment of compulsory retirement could be imposed since the petitioner has already retired from service. Further, the Articles of Charge does not pertain to any recovery and under the circumstance, there cannot be any recovery also from the petitioner. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he petitioner has submitted a letter to the Government that he does not claim pensionary or retirement benefits, and the said submission is taken on record. Under the circumstance, we hold that the petitioner succeeds and permitting Lokayukta to proceed with enquiry would only end up in completing the formality. Observing thus, we allow this petition and the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed. Petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE lnn