IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.15137/2019(S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI MADHAVA S/O LATE. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SURVEYOR R/AT NO.45, 1ST MAIN AND CROSS ROAD, CHOLURA PALYA BENGLAURU-560 023.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SURVEY) M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-01.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-01.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.I.TARANATH POOJARY, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.3.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KAT, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.951/2019 (ANNEXUER-A) REJECTING THE INTERIM PRAYER SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NARENDRA PRASAD J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the correctness of the order dated 26.3.2019 passed in Application No.951 of 2019 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal” for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal has rejected the interim prayer sought by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case:
Petitioner was appointed as a Surveyor on 21.8.1989 in the Department of Survey Settlement and Land Records. While he was working as Surveyor, there was an allegation against the petitioner that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant-C.V.Muniyappa. Hence, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. By order dated 21.1.2019, the respondent No.1 imposed the penalty by dismissing the petitioner from the services. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed Application No.951 of 2019 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 18.2.2019, directed the Additional Government Advocate to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2; directed the standing counsel to take notice for respondent No.3 and granted four weeks time to file reply statement. The petitioner, being aggrieved by order dated 18.2.2019 passed by the Tribunal approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9953/2019, which came to be dismissed on 8.3.2019. The Tribunal by order dated 26.3.2019 has rejected the interim prayer sought by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record.
4. While the petitioner was working as Surveyor, there was allegation against him that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant- C.V.Muniyappa. On that basis, departmental enquiry had been initiated and charges leveled against him have been proved. Hence, he was dismissed from the service. Since, the petitioner has not made out any ground for granting interim order, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the interim prayer sought by the petitioner.
5. In the circumstances, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has rejected the interim prayer sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DM/-