IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S N SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM W.P.NO.23806/2018 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI M. VEERABHADRAPPA, S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT HUDEM VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SERVICES), M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577501 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE AND QUASH ANNX-A DTD. 18.11.2016 IN APPLICATION NO.5536/2003 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DENYING THE SALARY AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT TILL HE ATTAINED THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION ON 31.05.2015 AND FURTHER BENEFITS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The applicant in Application No.5536/2003 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “KSAT”) has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 18.11.2016 wherein his prayer to quash the order dated 3.1.1995 vide Annexure-11; the order dated 13.10.1995 (Annexure- A12) and the order dated 9.9.1999(Annexure-A17) and also with a prayer for a direction to the respondent- authorities to reinstate him into Government service with all consequential benefits, is dismissed by a detailed order.
2. The case of the petitioner has a checkered history. Admittedly he was working as a Village Accountant since 1971. It is stated that in the year 1986, he remained absent for duty from 1.11.1986 to 8.6.1987. It is in this background, an enquiry was initiated for the misconduct of remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly. Initially an order was passed by the third respondent herein imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect under Rule 12 and 8(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services(Classification & Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short “KCS(CCA) Rules”).
3. However, when the same was taken up in an appeal by the petitioner herein before the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry to third respondent. It is seen that in the fresh enquiry also the third respondent submitted a report on 11.5.1992 holding that the charges framed against the petitioners are proved. It is based on that the second respondent passed an order removing the applicant from Government service by order dated 25.08.1992.
4. Against which, it is seen that an appeal was filed to the Divisional Commissioner, who in turn remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner on 23.10.1983 setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.08.1992 with a direction to consider the reply of the applicant to the second show- cause notice and to pass fresh order. Thereafter, the second respondent after issuing second show-cause notice and considering the reply of the petitioner dated 15.10.1994 passed the order dated 3.1.1995 removing him from Government service under Rule 8(vii) of KCS(CCA) Rules, which was again the subject matter of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru, and the said appeal also came to be rejected by an order dated 13.10.1995.
5. Against which a review was filed. However, what happened to the said review is not forthcoming from the records. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal in Application No.2482/1997 challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 13.10.1995, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The said order of dismissal by the Tribunal was subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.8510/1998 wherein the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order of the Tribunal with a direction to the Government to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by order dated 1.4.1998.
6. In the meanwhile, it is seen that contempt proceedings were initiated by the petitioner against the State in CCC.No.105/1999 for non-implementation of the order dated 1.4.1998. However, in the meanwhile, the Government passed an order on 9.9.1999 rejecting the application of the applicant. In the light of the representation being considered by the Government by its aforesaid order dated 09.09.1999 the proceedings in C.C.No.105/1999 came to be disposed of on 15.09.1999. Thereafter, it is seen that one more writ petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.15015/2005 challenging the order dated 9.9.1999. Since the said writ petition was not pursued, the same came to be rejected for non-prosecution on 18.10.2000 which was not sought to be recalled for nearly six years. It is only in the month of January 2006 on an application filed by the petitioner herein, the order of dismissal for non- prosecution was set aside by imposing cost of Rs.1000/- Thereafter, on the same day, the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the applicant to approach the Tribunal.
7. It is in this background the application which was already filed by the petitioner herein in Application No.5536/2003 was pursued. Though in the said proceedings, certain observations were made by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment cited before it in the matter of Chikkamallappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and another in Application No.1160/1998 as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Dr.Jayamma H. .vs. State reported in (1993 KSLJ 988), in the end the Tribunal found that the petitioner having already reached the age of superannuation in pursing the litigation lasting for a period of 28 years without performing any duties from the date of his removal from service in the year 1985 held that in the fact, situation, it would be appropriate to modify the order impugned before it in holding that he shall be considered as retired with effect from the date he was removed from service on 3.1.1995 and accordingly, the applicant is held entitled for pension and pensionary benefits in accordance with the applicable rules. It is also held that he is not entitled for any wages for the period he had remained absent by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal.
8. On going through the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is justified both on facts as well as on legal points more particularly with reference to the petitioner not performing any duties for more than 28 years and that too the applications and writ petitions which were filed by him were not pursued by him diligently at the earliest point of time to ensure that his case is considered before he attained the age of superannuation. Since he had already attained the age of superannuation when the matter was taken up for final disposal, the concessional order which is passed by the Tribunal as stated supra appears to be just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court.
9. However, this Court would direct respondents 1 to 3 to implement the order passed by the Tribunal within sixty days, if it is already not implemented. With aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-