A departmental enquiry cannot be re-initiated via a second entrustment order if the previous entrustment was withdrawn and the employee has already been exonerated from the relevant charges.

Digitally signed by

VISHAL NINGAPPA

PATTIHAL

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03-03-2023 MADE IN APPLICATION NO. 10550/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03-03-2023 MADE IN APPLICATION NO. 10550/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS; AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

1. This petition is filed challenging the Order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Application No.10550/2020 by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi.

2. The brief facts of applicant's case as pleaded before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal are as under;

In pursuance of a complaint given by Sri S.Y. Tisagappagaol, Junior Health Assistant, Gokul Taluk, Belagavi District and three others alleging that after the audit of accounts of the National Leprosy Control Centre at Ramadurga for the period from 1997 to 1995 it was noticed that excess payment was made to the complainant and three others. Accordingly, respondent No.1 suggested to recover the said excess amount. In this regard, the applicant called them and informed that if they totally pay Rs.12,000/- he will see that recovery will not be made from them. The complainant not willing to pay the amount to the applicant, lodged a complaint before the Lokayuktha on 27.12.2002. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.19/2002 against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A trap was laid and the amount was seized from one Sri Pannaalgad, a Group ‘D’ employee who has remitted the said amount to State Bank of Mysuru. In view of registration of case in Cr.No.19/2002, a report was submitted against the applicant seeking entrustment of the matter to hold departmental enquiry. Respondent No.1, on 05.12.2003 entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta under Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS (CCA) Rule, 1957’ as at Annexure-A1. Since there was no progress for a period of 03 years after entrustment and having noticed that the allegations made in the complaint does not come in the purview of misconduct vide notification dated 07.01.2006 the entrustment order was withdrawn by respondent No.2. In the meantime, in the Criminal Case, on 17.02.2007 the applicant was acquitted from the charges as at Annexure- A3. In view of the acquittal order passed, respondent No.1 passed an order on 10.12.2010 exonerating the applicant from the charges as at Annexure-A4. Further the applicant was absolved from the disciplinary proceedings as at Annexure-A2. Though the entrustment order passed under Rule 14A of KCS (CCA) Rule, 1957 was already withdrawn by respondent No.1 and further when the applicant has already exonerated from trap charges, after 9 long years, respondent No.3 submitted a report dated 23.08.2011 under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act and sought for entrustment of the matter to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14A KCS (CCA) Rule, 1957 as at Annexure-A5.