Point of Law : Propensity of Government Departments and public authorities to keep litigating through different tires of judicial scrutiny” as “one of reasons for docket explosion. [Para 6]

ORDER :

Heard the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. The instant writ petition is by the State represented by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Benglauru, the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga and the Accountant General (A & E) in Karnataka, Bengaluru.

3. The writ petition was listed on 29.10.2022 and after hearing the learned AGA, the following order was made:-

“Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the petitioners/State.

The petitioner is the State of Karnataka, Department of Home, by its Additional Chief Secretary, Bengaluru, the DG & IG of Police, Bengaluru, the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga, the Accountant General (A&E), in Karnataka, Bengaluru.

We have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.1780/2018 dated 20.10.2020. The facts are that the respondent was prosecuted for possessing disproportionate assets. In other words, assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

We have perused paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned order. The contents of which are neither disputed nor controverted by the learned Additional Government Advocate. On reading of the same, it is amply clear that what respondent has faced is not a prosecution but something other than that. What causes consternation to this Bench is that despite the sheer weight of evidence against the petitioners they have ventured to file this petition. The cavalier fashion in which the writ petition is filed would prima-facie indicate the scant regard the petitioners have for judicial time. The paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 clearly records the admissions elicited from the departmental witnesses. More particularly, PW’s-8 and 9, who have clearly admitted that the income of the son, wife and income from other sources like agricultural income and rental income, have not been taken into consideration while holding that the assets held are disproportionate to the known sources of income. It is further forthcoming from the cross-examination that the said sources of income have been ignored despite the same being before the Enquiry Officer. It is also elicited from the mouth of the witness, that the son was an Engineer and gainfully employed in Bengaluru which fact was also known to the Enquiry Officer. The fact that wife was also gainfully employed was also known to the Enquiry Officer. The suggestion that assets possessed by the DGO before his entry into service cannot be taken into account have also been taken into consideration. The sheer weight of all these admissions has gone unnoticed by the Enquiry Officer who appears to have given a report that the charges are proved. The cake itself is foul smelling and the cream on it is the instant petition. The instant writ petition only shows scant regard for the judicial time. The High Court cannot be treated like a dustbin by the largest litigant and the litigant bears a responsibility towards the justice dispensation system, a responsibility which is a constitutional mandate.

On umpteen number of occasions have come across numerous meritless petitions and despite our intention to impose cost and in some cases even after cost was imposed, conceding to the fervent pleas of the Government Advocates, we have gone lenient. As the saying goes, this is the last straw that broke the Camel’s back. This is a case which causes real consternation. It is even unthinkable that somebody could have given a finding that the charges are proved.

Assuming that the follies of the Enquiry Officer can be condoned by attributing lack of legal knowledge, can the same yard-stick be applied here. In the light of the categorical findings rendered by the Tribunal, it is impossible to condone or turn a blind eye to this frivolous petition. The instant petition is nothing but a sheer waste of judicial time. In that view of the matter and in view of the previous alerts, warnings & reminders pa