Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.N. SATYANARAYANA, H.P. SANDESH, JJ.
State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary Finance Department – Petitioner
Versus
Sri. P. Giridhar Kudva S/o Late P. Krishna Kudva – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 22473 of 2015
Decided On : 14-02-2020
Karnataka Civil Services Rules - Rule 214(2)(b) – Employment and service - Retired from service - Respondent herein was discharging his duties as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes while he was in service - His service records would indicate that at time of entering into service he had informed that his date of birth and accordingly he continued to work in Department - It is seen that in or around an anonymous letter was received by authorities indicating that date of birth of respondent herein as furnished by him while joining service - It is there onwards an enquiry was commenced by issuing a letter to him and also a notice calling upon him to give explanation for such allegation by notice - It is in response to that respondent herein is said to have written a letter to Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes which is received in said office as could be seen from document which is produced along with memo - In said letter respondent with reference to allegation of his date of birth is concerned - There is a clear admission on part of respondent delinquent employee that date of birth which is furnished by him at time of entering into service is erroneous and that his actual date of birth - In spite of there being a clear admission it is seen that an enquiry is initiated while he was in service - It is also seen that he did not participate in said enquiry - Several notices that were sent to him was dodged and avoided and subsequently enquiry was completed and it was held that when intimation was received regarding false age furnished by him and that he should have retired itself - However he has continued in service by giving false date of birth – Held, Fact that respondent could be responsible in manipulating things in such a way that charge sheet is not issued immediately thereafter cannot be ruled out - When a person at time of entering into service itself is having criminal intention of providing false date of birth and successfully continued in service year when his falsehood was exposed has continued in service even thereafter to complete years of service based on false date of birth which is furnished by him and has taken benefit of same - In meanwhile it is also seen that he has dodged enquiry proceedings which was initiated against him and made sure that proceedings initiated against him would not reach finality until when judgment was passed by competent authority namely Solicitor and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary Law Department and Enquiry Officer in holding that actual date of birth of respondent herein - In that view of matter issuance of charge sheet for conducting disciplinary proceedings though belated it is proper and should not be interfered with - Court are also of opinion that when said officer accepted that he has deliberately given false date of birth in his reply much earlier to his retirement on basis of false date of birth issued by him it is a fit case where criminal prosecution is required to be initiated - In fact though Rule 214(3) and (6) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules initially was an obstacle for initiating proceedings against a retired officer Apex Court in matter has read down similar Rule which was in Punjab Civil Services and has held that same would not come in way of holding criminal prosecution - Therefore in present case also while considering writ petition filed by petitioner-State Court set aside not only order passed by Tribunal but also reserve liberty to petitioner-State herein to initiate criminal prosecution against respondent- delinquent officer for gross abuse of process of law as well as for making deliberate false declaration of his date of birth to secure illegal benefit to continue in service for seven years beyond date on which he was required to superannuate and consequently causing financial loss to State - Writ petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. The respondent-State in Application No. 2870/2013 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short), has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 1.4.2014, passed in the said proceedings.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The application before the Tribunal was filed by the respondent herein seeking quashing of show cause notice issued to him along with articles of charge Vide No. 65/.......2012 dated 8.11.2012 (Annexure-A2) and Order No. 65/.......2012 dated 23.2.2013 (Annexure-A4) in appointing the Enquiry Authority issued by the respondent No. 1 in the said proceedings.
3. Admittedly, the respondent herein was discharging his duties as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes at Bengaluru, while he was in service. His service records would indicate that at the time of entering into service, he had informed that his date of birth is 3.10.1949 and accordingly he continued to work in the Department. It is seen that, in or around 2006, an anonymous letter was received by the authorities indicating that the date of birth of the respondent herein is 30.11.1942 and it is not 3.10.1949, as furnished by him while joining service. It is there onwards, an enquiry was commenced by issuing a letter to him bearing No. JCCT(A) DVO-1-T/537-2056 dated 12.1.2006 and also a notice calling upon him to give explanation for such allegation by notice dated 4.2.2006.
4. It is in response to that, the respondent herein is said to have written a letter to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adm.) DVO-1, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, which is received in the said office on 17.2.2006, as could be seen from the document which is produced along with memo dated 8.2.2018. In the said letter, the respondent, with reference to the allegation of his date of birth being 30.11.1942 is concerned, has submitted his explanation as under:
“2. As regard to the certificate of my school final, I have already submitted an explanation to you that the cumulative record was lost long back. However, I do not wish to dispute the date of birth mentioned in the allegation and I admit the same.”
In view of the above, there is a clear admission on the part of the respondent delinquent employee that the date of birth which is furnished by him at the time of entering into service as 3.10.1949 is erroneous and that his actual date of birth is 30.11.1942. Inspite of there being a clear admission, it is seen that an enquiry is initiated while he was in service. It is also seen that he did not participate in the said enquiry. Several notices that were sent to him was dodged and avoided and subsequently the enquiry was completed and it was held that as on 2005, when the intimation was received regarding false age furnished by him he was aged about 64 years and that he should have retired on 30.11.2000 itself. However, he has continued in service by giving false date of birth.
5. The records would also say that the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes held the enquiry. In the said enquiry, explanation was given by the respondent herein on 17.2.2006, as stated supra. Though he has given a reply on 17.2.2006, he did not appear before the authorities and participate in the enquiry, thereby clearly indicating that an enquiry was already started when he was in service and inspite of enquiry being initiated and continued against him, he was not discharged from service and he was allowed to complete service of 58 years on the basis of false date of birth, which was furnished by him at the time of entering into service.
6. As could be seen from another document which is produced, a proceeding was there before the Solicitor and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary Law Department and Enquiry Officer, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru in Case No. Law 2 JDV 2006, where after conducting the enquiry, an order is passed on 4.10.2008 in holding that his date of birth is required to be altered from 3.10.1949 to 30.11.1942, which judg
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
