Back
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.17047/2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BYRESH B P
S/O LATE B PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FORMER SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O,
OFFICE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGGA
RESIDING AT NO.844, 10TH CROSS,
ITI LAYOUT, PAPYREDDY PALYA,
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560072
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.127,
PRERANA NILAYA, B BLOCK,
NEAR SHARAVATH DENTAL COLLEGE,
GOLDEN CITY AKOLA, SHIMOGA-577204.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. M.V.ASHWINI, ADV. FOR
SRI VEDAMURTHY M.V, ADV.)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
2
2.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT,
SHIMOGGA-577201.
3.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR)
101, 1ST FLOOR,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1-R3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN No.EST.NO(1) CR 311/2016-2017
L.No 65774 DATED 26.09.2017/03.10.2017 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-B AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.05.2019
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No-2 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-D
AND
THE
DATED
16.06.2020
PASSED
BY
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-E
BY
ALLOWING
WP
APPLICATION
No-
3375/2019 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY
HEARING” THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader.
The
petitioner
is
before
this
Court
being
aggrieved by the order of the tribunal rejecting the
3
application preferred by the petitioner impugning the order
accepting the resignation tendered by him.
There is no dispute with regard to the dates and
events. The fact of the petitioner having tendered his
resignation is not dispute. The fact that it was tendered in
February 2017 is not in dispute. The fact that it was
accepted in October 2017 is not dispute. The fact remains
that the representation to recall the order and reinstate the
petitioner is in 2019, is also not dispute. The tribunal has
appreciated the
provisions
of law
and
the
Gazette
notification dated 12.04.1990 whereby, a time limit of one
month has been stipulated for withdrawal of resignation
tendered. That apart, the tribunal has also taken note of
the fact that the resignation has been accepted belatedly
that too after ten months and hence, no malafides or
motives can be attached to the order accepting the
resignation. The tribunal has also appreciated the
contention that a wrong provision of law has been quoted
while accepting the resignation. As rightly held by the
4
tribunal, mere mentioning of wrong provision of law does
not vitiate the order. The power to accept the resignation
being traceable to the rules, the said error in no manner
vitiates the proceedings.
4.
In that view of the matter, there being no error
or illegality in the reasoning of the tribunal or original
authority, we have no hesitation to affirm the findings. In
that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits.
Petition is accordingly rejected.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Chs
CT-HR
