IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.9020 OF 2018 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI K. DURGAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NARADAMUNI PRASANNA BUILDING BEHIND CHAMUNDESHWARI TALKIES NITUVALLI, DAVANAGERE.
....PETITIONER (BY SRI N.M. HANDRAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER SAGAR SUB-DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATA SATYANARAYAN, HCGP) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:27.11.2017 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.818/2008 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 27.11.2017 passed in Application No.818/2008 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘KSAT’ for short).
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner herein who was working as Village Accountant in Sonaburu Circle, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamogga District, was charged with several offences said to have been committed by him while discharging his duty as Village Accountant. The charges so leveled against him were in all four. The first of it is misleading the villagers by giving wrong information, misbehaving with them, collecting money for issue of Khatha, pahani, for changing them and also collecting money for sanctioning of old age pension, widow pension and any application filed seeking regularization of unauthorized cultivation. Besides this, there are three other charges which are with reference to non-issuance of receipts for the money received from two persons, the third charge being receipt of bribe for registration of documents, the fourth one is spreading rumors against Sonaburu Grama Panchayath Office, and consequently, committed the offences punishable under Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
3. It is in this background, show-cause notice was issued to him. In the enquiry conducted in this behalf, the charges leveled against him were held to be proved. Accordingly, he was punished for the same by order dated 12.04.1999 in proceedings No.Sibbandi (2) CCA 3:96-97.
4. The said order was challenged by him before the Appellate Authority namely, the Divisional Commissioner at Bengaluru, in Appeal No.13/2001-02 under Section 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It is seen that the appeal was filed with a delay of one year and two months and the said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 09.04.2002.
5. It is against these two orders, the petitioner approached the KSAT in Application No.818/2008. However, the said application was filed before the KSAT with a delay of five years. In the meanwhile, it is also seen that the petitioner has completed the age of superannuation. When the application which was filed by him before the KSAT is taken up for consideration, the same was heard regarding maintainability on the point of limitation and considering that the appeal is filed five years after the order of Appellate Authority being passed, the KSAT felt that the application is barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, by order dated 27.11.2017, the application was dismissed.
6. It is against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in dismissing the appeal/application against the order of imposing punishment in reduction of two annual increments with cumulative effect which has reached finality, is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the orders impugned and also the charges which are leveled against him and the findings which is rendered.
8. On going through the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority based on the enquiry report and as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority, are too lenient in dealing with the petitioner. When admittedly, the charges leveled against him are of such serious nature, where he has literally abused his office to such an extent, the stringent punishment which was available should have been considered. It is the lenience of Disciplinary Authority and as well as the Appellate Authority which is challenged to be tested before this Court.
9. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the considered opinion that filing of the appeal before the Appellate Authority as well as the application before the KSAT is nothing but abuse of process of law resulting in filing of this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition which is filed now is required to be dismissed imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- payable within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the said amount is not paid to the Registry of this Court within four weeks, the same shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA