IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.40603/2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI K G GOPINATH S/O LATE GUNDU RAO AGE 72 YEARS R/AT NO.30 SKANDA 2ND CROSS, SIMHADRI PAVERS OPP K R HOSPITAL, UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU-560061.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.K. MANJUNATHA RAO BHOUNSLE, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR CHIKKABALLAURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA KOLAR DISTRICT-562101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.I.TARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO EXERCISE ITS WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO QUASH THE ORDER IN A.NO. 3907/2007 DATED 28.5.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The legality and correctness of the order dated 28.5.2018 passed in A.No.3907/2007 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal” for the sake of brevity) is questioned in this writ petition. By the said order, the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein.
2. Briefly stated, facts are that the petitioner was working as a Village Accountant and while he was working at Bellur Circle, Bagepalli Taluk, Kolar District, departmental enquiry was initiated against him and by order dated 18.9.1976, he was dismissed from service. The said order of dismissal was questioned in W.P.No.6621/1980 before this Court after being unsuccessful before the appellate authority which by order dated 28.4.1977 had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. After the constitution of the Tribunal vide Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the case of the petitioner was transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 28.3.1987 allowed the petitioner’s application in part and in substitution of the penalty of dismissal, reinstatement was ordered and lesser punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed. There was also direction to reinstate the petitioner in his service.
3. It is submitted at the Bar that the order passed by the Tribunal was assailed by the respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the SLP by order dated 11.10.1993. Shortly, thereafter on 17.10.1993, the petitioner was reinstated in service and thereafter the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Subsequently, the petitioner made representation seeking consideration of his case and for issuance of a direction that the period from 18.9.1976 till 17.10.1993 i.e., from the date of dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement be treated as the period spent on duty. As per Rule 99 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as “KCSRs” for the sake of convenience), the said representation was rejected vide Annexures-A5 and A6 dated 1.9.2005 and 18.5.2006 and endorsement vide Annexure-A8 dated 1.2.2007. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Application No.3907/2007 before the Tribunal, which by impugned order dated 28.5.2018 has dismissed the application. Hence, this writ petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents on advance notice and perused the material on record.
5. Petitioner’s counsel contended that since the petitioner was ultimately reinstated into service, the period from 18.9.1976 i.e., the date of dismissal till 17.10.1993 which is the date of reinstatement, must be construed as period spent on duty. The same would be in consonance with the fact that the order of dismissal was set aside by the Tribunal and relief was granted to the petitioner herein by order dated 28.3.1987. He submitted that although the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement, the same was not done till 17.10.1993 and it is only on that date, reinstatement was ordered; that the petitioner cannot be at disadvantage on account of respondents not taking steps in time for reinstatement of the petitioner; that since the petitioner succeeded in the writ petition which later was transferred to the Tribunal and the order of dismissal was set aside, the period must be construed to be one spent on duty. Therefore, the impugned orders at Annexures-A5, A6, A7 and A8 may be quashed and relief be granted to the petitioner by quashing the order of the Tribunal 6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the Tribunal’s order would not call for any interference, firstly, because the petitioner has been paid full pay and allowances from 18.4.1980, which is the date on which he preferred the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal on 18.9.1976; that the respondent authorities were aggrieved by the reinstatement of the petitioner and thereafter the matter was taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which ultimately dismissed the SLP and shortly thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service; that the long period from 18.9.1976 to 17.10.1993 was spent in litigation and hence, the petitioner did not serve in the department for the said period. Even then he has received full pay and allowances from 18.4.1980, the date on which he filed the writ petition and that the impugned order does not call for any interference as the petitioner has not been fully exonerated and only lesser punishment of withholding of one increment cumulatively has been substituted for the order of dismissal. He further submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed.
7. Detailed narration of facts would not call for any reiteration. What emerges is the fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 18.9.1976 and it was only on 11.10.1973 when the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the respondent’s SLP that there was certainty in the matter and order of dismissal was substituted by lesser punishment of withholding of one increment cumulatively was given effect to by reinstating the petitioner into service on 17.10.1993. The time spent in litigation resulted in the petitioner not being reinstated in service till 17.10.1993. The petitioner did not work for the period from 18.9.1976 to 17.10.1993. Even then he has been paid full pay and allowances from 18.4.1980, which is the date on which the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal dated 18.9.1976. When the petitioner has received all monetary benefits for the period from 18.4.1980 upto 17.10.1993, the date on which he was reinstated into service, he cannot have any grievance in regard to treating the aforesaid period as the period spent on duty. It is not the case of complete exoneration of the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. The Tribunal substituted the order of dismissal with lesser punishment of reinstatement by withholding one increment cumulatively.
8. In the circumstances, the respondent authorities have exercised the discretion in holding that the period between 18.9.1976 till 17.10.1993 cannot be treated as period spent on duty under Rule 99 of KCSRs. We do not find any infirmity in the said decision that has been taken by the respondent authorities. This Court cannot substitute its view for that of the respondent authorities in the absence of there being any infirmity in the said stand of the respondent. There is no merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DM/-