Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA(DHARWAD BENCH)
S.G. PANDIT, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, JJ.
Sri. M.S. Kadkol S/o. Srishail Kadakol – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017(S-KAT)
Decided on : 31-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 21, 14 - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - KCS(Conduct) Rules, 1966 - Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) r/w Rule 16(4) - KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 - Rule 8 - Nature of penalties – Equality before law – Protection of life and personal liberty - Complaint which was filed before Deputy Superintendent of Police Lokayukta case was registered in Crime for offence under Section 7, 13(l)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and a raid was conducted - Petitioner who happened to be with delinquent government official (DGO -1) at time of raid, was also found to have Rs.50.00 the tainted currency. 1 his currency of Rs.50.00 is admittedly paid by DGO-1 to petitioner -According to contesting respondents, this currency of Rs.50.00 is part of Rs. 150.00 paid to DGO-1 by complainant - Whether petitioner has made out a case to interfere with finding recorded by Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Administrative Tribunal in this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Whether punishment is disproportionate to offence committed.
Finding of the Court :
Court is of view that punishment is shockingly disproportionate - This Court has come to this conclusion keeping in mind involvement of petitioner in entire episode discussed supra - Since punishment imposed violates, fundamental right guaranteed to petitioner, this Court would step in and exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and set aside order of penalty of compulsory retirement - Court cannot decide on the quantum of punishment to be awarded - This power exclusively lies with appointing authority - Court can only say whether punishment is disproportionate to offence committed - If it is shockingly disproportionate then Court can only remit matter back to the disciplinary authority to enable it to impose appropriate punishment which necessarily has to be less than punishment imposed earlier which is interdicted by this Court.
Result: Writ petition allowed in part
ORDER :
Rs.50 currency, which is said to have been found in the most unlikely place, i.e, in the socks worn by the petitioner, has landed the petitioner in the soup.
2. The trap laid, based on the complaint dated 16.01.1998, filed by Mr. Chandrachari, the Assistant Executive Engineer, was aimed at trapping another employee in the same department where the petitioner was working. The trap aimed at nabbing another employee, DGO-1 (Delinquent Government Official-1) also caught the present petitioner in possession of Rs.50, the tainted money.
3. The complainant Mr Chandrachari, was transferred from Byadagi to Dharwad. DGO-1 who was supposed to dispatch the service records, sat on it, expecting a bribe of Rs.150.00 for dispatching the service records.
4. Acting on the aforementioned complaint which was filed before Deputy Superintendent of Police Lokayukta, the case was registered in Crime No.2/1998 for the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and a raid was conducted. The petitioner who happened to be with the delinquent government official (DGO -1) at the time of the raid, was also found to have Rs.50.00 the tainted currency. This currency of Rs.50.00 is admittedly paid by DGO-1 to the petitioner. According to the contesting respondents, this currency of Rs.50.00 is part of Rs.150.00 paid to DGO-1 by the complainant.
5. Subsequently, the departmental enquiry is also initiated. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner as well as DGO-1. In the departmental enquiry, the accused in the original complaint dated 16.01.1998, is DGO-1 and the present petitioner is referred to as DGO-2. Petitioner contested the matter. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that charges against both the delinquent government officials are established. Pursuant to the report dated 14.08.2003, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 07.09.2004. Said order is called in question by the petitioner. Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in terms of its order dated 01.06.2016 in application No.5791/2014, rejected the challenge.
6. The petitioner is before this court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the Administrative Tribunal. At the time of the trap, the petitioner was working as a Second Division Assistant in the Public Works Department, Byadagi.
7. Narrative in the petition can be summarized as under.
7.1 One H.R.Naikar, DGO -1 who was also working as Second Division Assistant in the office where the petitioner was discharging duty, was assigned the task of dispatching the service records of complainant–Mr Chandrachari. The complainant alleged that Mr Chandragiri was repeatedly approaching DGO1, requesting him to dispatch his service records. Despite repeated requests, the DGO-1 did not dispatch the service records. However, DGO-1 demanded Rs.150=00 for work to be done file.
7.2 Just before the trap, Rs.50/-was handed over to the petitioner by DGO-1 which according to the petitioner was the hand loan advanced by DGO -1.
7.3 The petitioner claims that he unsuspectingly received Rs.50/-as a hand loan from DGO -1, being unaware that the currency handed over to him was tainted.
7.4 Petitioner never demanded money from Mr Chandrachari and never received money from him.
8. As narrated above, in the departmental enquiry, the charge against the petitioner is held to be proved and consequently, he is compulsorily retired from service. The challenge to the said order, before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, turned out to be futile. Hence the present petition.
9. Heard Sri.V.M.Sheelavant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
10. The question that needs to be answered in this petition is, whether the petitioner has made out a case to interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Aut
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
