Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.N. SATYANARAYANA, H.P. SANDESH, JJ.
Sri. R. Krishnappa S/o Ramanna – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 35446 of 2018
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayatri.
For the Respondent: Sri. Venkata Satyanarayan.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government has the authority to initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee when criminal misconduct has been proved, and the acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the government from initiating a departmental enquiry.
Headnote:
Rule 14A - Departmental Enquiry - Rule 214(2)(b)(iii) - The court discussed the applicability of Rule 14A and Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 in the context of initiating departmental enquiry against a retired government servant. The court held that the government has the authority to initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee when criminal misconduct has been proved, and the acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the government from initiating a departmental enquiry. The court also emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated and proceeded against a retired government servant under the Rules, as the present tense is used in respect of persons who are in government service. The court further discussed the procedure for enquiry when the matter is referred to Lokayuktha and held that the Lokayuktha can entrust the matter to any of its officers to conduct the inquiry, in strict compliance with Rule 11 which are not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired government servant, sought relief from a writ of certiorari to set aside an order imposing a penalty of withholding 30% of his pension. The petitioner argued that the departmental enquiry against him was impermissible in law as it was initiated after his retirement and that there was inordinate delay and laches in completing the enquiry. The petitioner also contended that the respondent failed to consider the grounds urged before the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the government has the authority to initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee when criminal misconduct has been proved. The court also held that the acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the government from initiating a departmental enquiry. The court found that the Tribunal had considered the material on record and the grave misconduct of the petitioner, and therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
Issues: The issues before the court included the permissibility of initiating a departmental enquiry against a retired government servant, the delay in completing the enquiry, and the consideration of grounds urged before the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the government has the authority to initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee when criminal misconduct has been proved. The court also held that the acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the government from initiating a departmental enquiry. The court further discussed the procedure for enquiry when the matter is referred to Lokayuktha and held that the Lokayuktha can entrust the matter to any of its officers to conduct the inquiry, in strict compliance with Rule 11 which are not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order imposing a penalty of withholding 30% of the petitioner's pension.
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed seeking the relief of writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 2.7.2018 passed in Application No. 8648/2015, on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) and to grant such other order or direction as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner entered into service as Village Accountant in the Department of Revenue in the year 1972. He was promoted as Revenue Inspector in the year 2000 and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2007.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as a Revenue Inspector at Munganahalli Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Kolar District, on the complaint of one Sri Y.B. Venkataramanappa, a trap was conducted on 29.4.2006, by the Lokayuktha police. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed in P.S. No. 6/2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was numbered as PCACC No. 7/2006 on the file of the Principle Sessions Judge, Kolar. The same was transferred to Chikkaballapur Sessions Court consequent to the formation of the new District and was re-numbered as PCACC No. 1/2007. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted.
4. After the trap was conducted against the petitioner on 29.4.2006, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2007. The Upalokayuktha sent the 12(3) report to the respondent on 22.6.2007. After the retirement of the petitioner, the respondent Government invoking Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules’ for short) issued an order on 23.7.2007, entrusting the matter to the Upalokayuktha for conducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Upalokayuktha passed an order on 10.8.2007, nominating the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-5 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha as the Enquiry Officer to frame the charges against the petitioner and to conduct the enquiry against him. Accordingly, the charges were framed against the petitioner. The charge framed against the petitioner is that he demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- on 29.4.2006, from the complainant when he had approached the petitioner with a request for inserting his name and the name of his father in respect of Survey No. 142/1 situated at Yenumalapadi and for spot inspection. Thereby, he failed to maintain absolute integrity. The charge leveled against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1/2007 is identical to the charge framed in the departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry against the petitioner was continued and the report was submitted that the charge has been proved. Thereafter, the Upalokayuktha sent a recommendation to the Government on 3.2.2015 recommending penalty of reduction of 30% of pension permanently under Rule 214(1)(a) of the Rules. Thereafter, the respondent issued second show cause notice enclosing enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent passed an order on 18.8.2015 imposing the penalty of withholding 30% of pension of the petitioner.
5. The same was questioned before the Tribunal in Application No. 8648/2015 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2018. Hence, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.
6. The grounds urged in the petition is that the Tribunal has passed a cryptic order mainly presuming that the charge against the petitioner is proved and none of the contentions raised by the petitioner has been dealt with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact of delay in initiation and completion of the departmental enquiry. In order to prove the charge, it is very much necessary to prove both ingredient of demand and acceptance. The Tribunal failed to consider that the complainant
