IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL Nos.807-812 of 2018 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. NANJUNDE GOWDA K N S/O. LATE NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING IN DRCS HASSAN JANATHA BAZAR BUILDING KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS DRCS BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-No.14 NAVODAYA SAHAKARA BANK BUILDING 15TH CROSS, 10TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU–560 003. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU–560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA, No.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU–560 052.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-No.14, NAVODAYA SAHAKARA BANK BUILDING 15TH CROSS, 10TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU–560 003.
4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION KONGADIYAPPA ROAD DODDABALLAPURA–562 123.
5. SRI. CHELUVARAJU H. P. S/O. LATE K. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT GANDHI GRAMA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 6. VEERAMAREGOWDA S/O. CHANNAMAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT–562 123.
7. HANUMANTHARAJU SON OF MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT GORAVANAHALLI VILLAGE SOLADEVANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALAORE RURAL DISTRICT–562 123.
8. RUDRAPPA SON OF BYLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT AVALAGUPPE VILLAGE MOTAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT–562 123.
9. PRABHAKAR SON OF GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS KALASEGOWDANAPALYA HONNASANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT–562 123.
10. CHANNAKESHAVA MURTHY SON OF GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS GORINABELE VILLAGE YENTAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT–562 123.
11. GANDHI GRAM VYVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA GANANAYYAKANATANDYA MANCHENAHALLI CROSS, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT–562 123 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 4; SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. D. K. SRIRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 to 11) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE ORDER IN PARA 6 IN THE ORDER DATED 04/12/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 38845-38850/15 “THE FIRST RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED TO CONDUCT AS ENQUIRY AGAINST THE CONDUCT OF THAT OFFICER IN IGNORING THE CIRCULAR AND TAKING AN ARBITRARY STAND CONTRARY TO THE RULES GOVERNING DIVISION OF SANGHA AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST HIM FOR DERELICTION OF DUTY AND THE OUTCOME OF THE SAME SHALL BE REPORTED TO THIS COURT WITHIN FOUR MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THIS ORDER” BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED THEREIN.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These writ appeals are filed by the appellant seeking to set aside certain observations made in para-6 of the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The appellant is not a party in his individual capacity before the learned Single Judge. He was made as a respondent in an official capacity as respondent No.3. The learned Single Judge, while coming to the conclusion that the writ requires to be allowed, directed the Principal Secretary to conduct an enquiry against the conduct of the appellant in ignoring the circular and taking an arbitrary stand. That the enquiry should be completed and reported to the court within four months.
3. Learned counsel submits that even assuming that there is an error committed by the appellant in ignoring the circular, the same does not warrant issuance of departmental enquiry against any of the respondents.
4. None of the respondents have any submissions to make.
5. On hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the observations made by the learned Single Judge is inappropriate. Even assuming that an error has been committed by the appellant, either in ignoring or in not properly considering the circular, we have no hesitation to hold that the same does not warrant initiation of a departmental enquiry against the appellant. Initiation of departmental enquiry is a matter of grave concern. We do not find it appropriate that mere misreading or not considering the circular would attract initiation of departmental proceedings against him. Therefore, we are of the view that the said observation requires to be set aside.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeals are partly allowed. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in para-6 of the impugned order, directing the Principal Secretary to hold an enquiry against the appellant and other related directions with regard to the same, are hereby set aside. The rest of the order is undisturbed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE RD