Karnataka High Court
The Deputy Commissioner vs Suresh Reddy on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB
WA No.200119 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.200119 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
AND THE CHAIRMAN,
NIRMITHI KENDRA, RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GOURISH S.KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA SRI. SURESH REDDY
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON S/O SHARANAPPA GOUDA,
Location: HIGH AGE: 42 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC: EARLIER IN-CHARGE PROJECT MANAGER
IN NIRMATHI KENDRA RAICHUR,
R/O: H.NO.1-11-118/2,
P.V. NAGAR, EKLASPAR ROAD,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB
WA No.200119 of 2024
18.08.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.202069/2017 (S-
RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 18.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.202069/2017 by the learned Single Judge.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:
The petitioner/respondent was working in Nirmithi Kendra at Raichur district for several years without single allegations and complaint against him. Considering his service, the appellant promoted him as an In-charge Project Manager on 07.07.2014 and he worked up to 16.12.2015. It is contended that the petitioner/respondent's performance was in accordance with the rules and regulations of Nirmithi Kendra. The Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi on the alleged -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB WA No.200119 of 2024 complaint against Nirmithi Kendra, Raichur, constituted an investigation team to investigate the alleged irregularities committed by the various persons commencing from 2007-08 to 30.11.2012. The said investigation team after completion of the investigation submitted a report to the appellant. On the basis of the report submitted by the investigating team, the appellant suspended some of the employees including the petitioner/respondent. It is contended that there are no specific allegations against the respondent on the report submitted by the Committee to the appellant. Therefore, the respondent was promoted as an in-charge Project Manager on 07.07.2014. The respondent assumed the charge from one K.Kushal Kumar, since from that date the respondent worked as an in-charge Project Manager till 16.12.2015.
3. The CAG conducted the audit of Nirmithi Kendra, Raichur in the month of October, 2015. As per the CAG report administrative lapses are highlighted. The appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent on -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB WA No.200119 of 2024 23.11.2015. It is contended that respondent was directed to submit the application to the audit report. The respondent submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 03.12.2015, stating that there is no specific allegation against the respondent, work was done as per the norms and procedure. The appellant passed an order of suspension on 14.12.2015, suspended the respondent and directed to enquire the conduct of the staff members and ordered to submit a report within 7 days. The respondent submitted the representation to revoke the order of suspension and release the salary. The appellant has not paid the subsistence allowance and salary for the month of October 2011 to December 2015.
4. The respondent, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the appellant filed the writ petition seeking for quashing the order of suspension dated 14.12.2015 passed by the appellant and sought for mandamus directing the respondent to disburse the subsistence allowance and salary during the suspension period as per -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB WA No.200119 of 2024 the representation submitted by the respondent dated 11.02.2017 vide Annexure-E.
5. The appellant has not filed the statement of objection before the writ Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.08.2023 allowed the writ petition.
6. The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, has filed this writ appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for the respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the respondent has committed irregularities in Nirmiti Kendra, Raichur and CAG has observed in the audit report that administrative and financial violations are highlighting based on the report. The appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent and called for explanation. He submits that respondent has committed serious lapse in -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB WA No.200119 of 2024 the administrative and financial operations of Nirmiti Kendra. He submits that the appellant has rightly passed an order of suspension. Hence, on these grounds he submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has suspended the respondent on 14.12.2015 and no enquiry has been conducted by the appellant. He submits that no reasons has been assigned by the appellant. He submits that, the appellant without extending the order of suspension in writing has continued the order of suspension which is contrary to law. He submits that order of suspension cannot be continued for more than 6 months. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. We have perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB WA No.200119 of 2024
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/respondent was working as a Junior Engineer and he was promoted as an In-charge Project Manager on 07.07.2014 and he worked up to 16.12.2015. The Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi on the basis of complaint against Nirmithi Kendra, Raichur constituted a investigation team to investigate the alleged irregularity committed by the various persons commencing from 2007-08 to 30.11.2012. The investigating team after completion of the investigation submitted a report to the appellant. On the basis of the report submitted by the committee, the appellant suspended the employees including the respondent on the ground that there was irregularities being committed by the employees of the Nirmithi Kendra, Raichur. The appellant passed the order of suspension on 14.12.2015 suspending the respondent and other employees and directed to conduct the enquiry of the staff members and to submit a report. The respondent has submitted several representation to revoke the suspension order and release the salary. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB WA No.200119 of 2024
12. From the perusal of the reasons it discloses that no enquiry was conducted against the respondent so far and not taken any action to initiate criminal prosecution against the respondent. The learned Single Judge placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2015 (7) SCC 291, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para No.21 held as follows:
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB WA No.200119 of 2024 and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time- limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
13. Admittedly, in the instant case, appellant has not passed any order for extension of suspension. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order of suspension and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent into service. As observed above, the respondent was suspended with effect from 14.12.2015 and learned counsel for the appellant has not placed any records neither before the learned Single judge nor before this Court to demonstrate that the enquiry was conducted against the respondent or any action to initiate the criminal proceeding. The learned Single Judge placing the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB WA No.200119 of 2024 reliance on the above said judgment of the Supreme Court has rightly passed the impugned order. We do not find any error in the impugned order. We decline to interfere with the impugned order.
14. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Writ appeal is dismissed.
Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to initiate enquiry proceedings against the respondent, if so advised.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SKS