Commissioner Shivamogga City ... vs S. Nagaraja
2021 Latest Caselaw 5460 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              W.A. NO.1058 OF 2021 (S-RES)
                           IN
              W.P.No.4482 OF 2021 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. GANGADHARAPPA A.V. ADV.,)

AND:

1.     S. NAGARAJA
       S/O SHANKARANAYANA D.N.
       AGE 48 YEARS
       SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
       CITY CORPORATION, SHIVAMOGGA
       SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
       R/AT AT NO.H1, 'H' BLOCK
       KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA QUARTERS
       SAGARA ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
       VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
                                2



3.   THE DIRECTOR
     DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
     9TH FLOOR, VISVESWARAYA TOWER
     DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU-560001.

                                              ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIJAY KUMAR V.B. C/R1)
                            ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.4482/2021 DATED 11.06.2021.

      THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 11.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 has

been allowed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are

that the respondent No.1 is employed as Second Division

Assistant in Shimoga Municipal Corporation. On the

allegations of certain alleged irregularities committed by the

respondent No.1, by an order dated 09.02.2021, the

respondent No.1 was placed under suspension by the

Commissioner of the Corporation. The said order was

challenged by the respondent No.1 in the writ petition on the

ground that the Commissioner of the Corporation does not

have the competence to suspend respondent No.1 and the

competent authority is the Deputy Commissioner. The

learned Single Judge, vide order dated 11.06.2021 has

accepted the aforesaid contention and has quashed the order

of suspension and has allowed the writ petition filed by the

respondent No.1. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Commissioner

of the Corporation is not competent to suspend the

respondent No.1. It is further submitted that even assuming

that the Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority,

the Commissioner of the Corporation had obtained the post

facto sanction to the suspension of the respondent No.1

which was accorded on the same day i.e. the date on which

the order of suspension was passed namely 09.02.2021.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent No.1 has submitted that the learned Single Judge

has rightly held that the Commissioner of the Corporation did

not have the power to suspend the respondent No.1 who was

a Group 'C' employee of the Corporation.

5. On admitted facts, the only question which arises for

consideration is whether the Commissioner is the competent

authority to place the respondent No.1 under suspension who

is a Group 'C' employee. In exercise of powers under

Sections 508 and 509 of the Karnataka Municipal

Corporations Act, 1976, the Government of Karnataka, by

notification dated 17.04.2017, has delegated the powers

mentioned in Column 5 in respect of Section mentioned at

Column 2 to the Deputy Commissioner, Directorate of

Municipal Administration, Regional Commissioner, as

specified in Column Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of the table with

immediate effect. The relevant extract reads as under:

SL Section Sl.No. in Subject Presently Deputy DMA Regional Corporatio No Notification Power Commissi Commissio n No.UDD 58 vested oner ners Commis MNE 2015, with sioner Dated 19.06.2015

15 90 ....... Punish DMA Group ment C for Employ Corpora ees Officers Under And Rule 8(I Employ to VIII) of ees KCS (CCA) Rules,

Up to Pay scale 14,500 - 26,700

6. Thus, it is evident that clause 6 of the aforesaid

notification deals with the powers of the Deputy

Commissioner and the power with regard to punishment of

Officers and employees of the Corporation, which was vested

with the Director, Municipal Corporation, has been delegated

to the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, Rule 10(8)(2) of the

Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1957 specifically empowers the Deputy Commissioner

to place the employees of Group 'B' and Group 'C' under

suspension.

7. It is trite law that if the statute vests a power with a

particular authority, the power has to be exercised by that

authority alone. (See: 'COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

BOMBAY Vs. GORDHAN DAS BHANJI' AIR 1952 SC 16).

In the instant case, the power under the Rules has been

concurred on the Deputy Commissioner. However, the

aforesaid power has been exercised by the Commissioner of

the Corporation. Therefore, the fact that the order was

subsequently ratified by the Deputy Commissioner is of no

assistance to the appellant.

In the result, we do not find any ground to defer with

the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV