WA 122/2021

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

W.A.No.122/2021 (S-DIS)

BETWEEN:

Sri Prathap.B.,

Aged about 35 years,

S/o Late Balaraj,

No.289, 2^nd H Cross,

BBMP, 3^rd Main, 3^rd Stage,

Basaveshwaranagar,

Bengaluru-560 079.

& APPELLANT

(By Sri Prabhugouda.B.Tumbigi, Adv.)

AND:

The Commissioner,

Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike,

N.R.Square,

Bengaluru-560 002.

& RESPONDENT

This Writ Appeal is filed under section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court Act, praying to allow the Writ Appeal by

setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2020 passed

by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5965/2020 (S-DIS),

etc.

WA 122/2021

2

This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,

Satish Chandra Sharma J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.

The present appeal is arising out of the order dated

17.03.2020

passed

by

the

learned

Single

Judge

in

W.P.No.5965/2020 (Sri Prathap.B. Vs Commissioner, Bruhath

Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike).

2.

The facts of the case reveal that the present appellant

is an ex-employee of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

(BBMP) and on account of a complaint of allegedly demanding

illegal gratification, a criminal case was registered against

him at Crime No.69/2016. The undisputed facts make it very

clear that a charge sheet was later on filed in the matter and

thereafter he has been convicted in Spl.C.C.No.161/2017 by

the LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge

(PCA) Bengaluru, under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. The judgment was delivered on 22.04.2019, and

thereafter, the present appellant has preferred an appeal

before this Court i.e. Crl.A.No.865/2019. This Court has

suspended the sentence on 03.06.2019 meaning thereby, it is

WA 122/2021

3

only the sentence which has been suspended and the

conviction has not been stayed. Another important aspect of

the case is that the services of the employee in question were

put to an end by an order dated 22.04.2019, and thereafter,

the employee submitted a representation to the employer

that he has not been heard in the matter. An order was

passed by the employer on 30.09.2019 in the matter of grant

of pay and allowances, and thereafter, again an order was

passed on 30.09.2019 accepting the joining of the employee,

meaning thereby, the employer on the basis of the

representations of the employee has again re-considered the

matter and finally the order of termination was passed on

22.11.2019.

3.

Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued

before this Court that the action of the respondents is

violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as no

opportunity of hearing had been granted to the employee in

question. He has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in

the case of ANNOP JAISWAL VS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA &

ANOTHER 3 (1984)2 SCC 369 as well as upon the judgment

WA 122/2021

4

delivered in the case of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS

SUNIL KUMAR SARKAR 3 (2001)3 SCC 414. His contention is

that the criminal case has not attained finality as the

employee in question is in appeal. Secondly, his contention is

that opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the

employee in question.

4.

This Court has carefully gone through the pleadings and

has also heard the Counsel for the appellant at length and the

undisputed facts reveal that the employee in question has

been convicted for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) &

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal is

pending before this Court and only the sentence has been

stayed.

5.

The

statutory

provisions

governing

the

field

as

contained under Section 90 of the Karnataka Municipal

Corporations Act, 1976, reads as under:

<90. Punishment for Corporation officers

and other employees.- (1) Every Corporation

officer or