Karnataka High Court

Sri. Narayanaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2021

Bench: S.Sujatha, S Vishwajith Shetty

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

 W.P.No.45749/2018 (S - KAT) c/w. W.P.No.15005/2019
           & W.P.No.15006/2019 (S - KSAT)

IN W.P.No.45749/2018:

BETWEEN :
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O PILLANNA
AGED 39 YEARS,
EX-POLICE CONSTABLE
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.10,
SREE SAI SHWETHA NILAYA
PATEL NARAYANASWAMY LAYOUT
RAMACHANDRAPURA, JALAHALLI POST
BANGALORE-560013.                              ...PETITIONER

               (BY SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADV.)

AND :
1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
        HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA
        BANGALORE-560001

2.      THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
        POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
        POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
        BANGALORE-560001

3.      THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
                           -2-

        OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
        BANGALORE CITY
        BANGALORE-560001.                ...RESPONDENTS

         (BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER VIDE ANNX-C DTD 14.03.2018 PASSED IN APPLICATION
NO.6738/2012   BY   THE    HON'BLE   KARNATAKA    STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
SAID APPLICATION BY QUASHING THE ORDER AT ORDER AT
ANNX-A11 PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD 13.04.2010 VIDE ANNX-
A13 PASSED BY R-2 DTD 16.09.2010 AND THE ORDER AT
ANNX-A16 PASSED BY R-1 DTD 5.7.2012.

IN W.P.No.15005/2019:

BETWEEN :
SRI H.C.PRASANNA
S/O CHANDRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
POLICE CONSTABLE,
YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE, R/AT NO.17,
JAYALAKSHMI BUILDING,
3RD CROSS, VIDYANAGARA,
NEAR 8TH MILE, T.DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 073                               ...PETITIONER

               (BY SRI SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADV.)

AND :
1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
        DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA
        BANGALORE-560001

2.      THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
        AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
        POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
        BANGALORE-560001
                           -3-

3.      THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
        OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
        BANGALORE CITY
        BANGALORE-560001.                ...RESPONDENTS

         (BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3.)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMON ORDER DATED 14.03.2018, PASSED IN APPLICATION
NO.4489/2012-ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE; QUASH THE ORDER
OF THE R-1 ANNEXURE-A15, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.09.2011
IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REDUCTION OF TIME SCALE
WITHOUT CUMULATIVE EFFECT AND ALSO IN SO FAR AS IT
ORDERS PERIOD OF SERVICE FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL
TO RE-INSTATEMENT AS DIES-NON AND HOLDING THE PERIOD
FROM 28.01.2009 TO 13.04.2010 SUSPENSION PERIOD WAS
TREATED AS SUSPENSION; DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ARREARS DUE TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF SUSPENSION AND TILL THE
REVISION CAME TO BE ALLOWED AND RE-INSTATEMENT OF
THE PETITIONER CAME TO BE EFFECTED & ETC.,

IN W.P.No.15006/2019:

BETWEEN :
SRI ASHWATHA REDDY
S/O BASA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
POLICE CONSTABLE,
SANJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE, R/AT NO.15,
10TH BLOCK, J.B.KAVAL POLICE
QUARTERS, KRISHNAMALANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 096                               ...PETITIONER

               (BY SRI SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADV.)

AND :
1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
        DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA
        BANGALORE-560001
                        -4-

2.   THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
     AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
     POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560001

3.   THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
     OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
     BANGALORE CITY
     BANGALORE-560001.                ...RESPONDENTS

      (BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3.)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMON ORDER DTD 14.03.2018, PASSED IN APPLICATION
NO.4490/2012 VIDE ANNX-A ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE; QUASH THE ORDER
OF THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-A-15, VIDE ORDER DTD 30.09.2011, IN
SOFAR AS IT RELATES TO REDUCTION OF TIME SCALE
WITHOUT CUMULATIVE EFFECT AND ALSO IN SO FAR AS IT
ORDERSPERIOD OF SERVICE FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL
TO RE-INSTATEMENT AS DIES NON AND HOLDING THE PERIOD
FROM 28.01.2009 TO 13.04.2010 SUSPENSION PERIOD WAS
TREATED AS SUSPESION; DIRECT THE R-1 TO 13 GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ARREARS DUE TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF SUSPENSION AND TILL THE
REVISION CAME TO BE ALLOWED AND RE-INSTATEMENT OF
THE PETITIONER CAME TO BE EFFECTED & ETC.,

     THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

Since common and akin issues are involved in

these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of

by this common order. By a special order passed by

Hon'ble the Chief Justice, we have taken up the matters

for final disposal.

2. Charges were leveled against the petitioners

for the alleged collusion amongst the petitioners in

seizing the valuable photo from the house of Sri.Sanjeev

A. Kurup and on enquiry conducted, a report was

submitted by the Enquiry Officer, pursuant to which the

Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the

punishment which has been confirmed by the Appellate

Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioners in

W.P.Nos.15005/2019 and 15006/2019 filed revision

petitions before the respondent No.1 and the same came

to be partly allowed, modifying the order of penalty. The

said order reads thus:

"i. ²æÃ C±ÀéxÀgÉrØ ªÀiÁf ¦.¹. ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ ¥Àæ¸À£ßÀ ªÀiÁf ¦.¹. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

ii. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï PÁ£ïìmÉÃ§¯ï ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀ PÁ°PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ PÀ¤µÀ×

ºÀAvÀPÉÌ 5 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ ¸ÀAavÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ gÀ»vÀªÁV PÉ¼ÀV½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

iii. ¸ÉÃªÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉÆAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¸ÁÜ¥À£ÉUÉÆAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀªÀgÉV£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¯ÉPÀÌQÌ®èzÀ CªÀ¢ü [Dies non] JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

iv. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28-01-2009 jAzÀ 13-4-2010gÀ ªÀgÉV£À CªÀiÁ£ÀwÛ£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÛÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À¯ÁVzÉ."

3. On the same grounds, the petitioner in

W.P.No.45749/2018 has preferred the revision petition

which came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the

respective orders passed in revision petitions, the

petitioners preferred applications before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has passed a common order dated

14.03.2018 in Application No.4489/2012 C/w

Application Nos.4490 and 6738/2012 dismissing the

applications. Hence, these writ petitions.

4. Learned counsel Sri.K.V.Narasimhan

appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.45749/2018 has

argued as under:

1]. No identification of the accused was made by

the complainants in the identification parade

as well as before the Sessions Court.

2]. Sessions Court in S.C.No.258/2009 having

analyzed the material evidence has acquitted

the accused of the offences punishable

under Sections 419, 395 and 120B of Indian

Penal Code. The said judgment has reached

finality.

3]. In view of the Hon'ble acquittal of the

accused in similar set of facts, no

disciplinary proceedings would have been

continued and the penalty imposed is not in

conformity with the settled principles of law.

5. Learned counsel argued that no specific

finding has been given by the Enquiry Officer in the

enquiry report inasmuch as the charges leveled against

the accused are proved. The Disciplinary Authority

except re-producing the text of the enquiry report sans

applying the mind proceeded to dismiss the accused

from the service. On further appeal, the Appellate

Authority has not assigned any reasons for confirming

the order of the Disciplinary Authority. However, the

Revisional Authority though has modified the order of

the punishment in respect of Sri.Ashwath Reddy and

Sri.Prasanna, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15005/2019

and 15006/2019 despite bringing the said order to the

notice of the Revisional Authority, ignoring the same,

confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority

rejecting the revision petition.

6. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that

the order of the Revisional Authority is discriminatory

on the face of it. The Tribunal ought to have considered

these aspects in a right perspective in adjudicating the

matter. Learned counsel placing reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

G.M.Tank V/s. State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 5

SCC 446] and Allahabad Bank and Others V/s.

Krishna Narayan Tewari [AIR 2017 SC 330],

submitted that the action of the respondents in

dismissing the petitioner - Sri.Narayanaswamy from

service is wholly illegal and the same deserves to be set

aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in

W.P.Nos.15005/2019 and 15006/2019 would submit

that on the instructions of the parties, memo for

withdrawal was filed before this Court seeking

permission to withdraw the writ petitions. Thereafter,

again on the instructions of the parties, application for

withdrawal of memo for withdrawal has been filed. It is

submitted that on merits, learned counsel adopts the

- 10 -

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in W.P.No.45749/2018.

8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents supporting the impugned orders,

submitted that the charges leveled against the

petitioners/accused having been proved, the

Disciplinary Authority has proceeded to pass an order of

dismissal against them. Though the Appellate Authority

has confirmed the same, the Revisional Authority in

W.P.Nos.15005/2019 and 15006/2019, has modified

the punishment order. The petitioner in

W.P.No.45749/2018 having approached the Revisional

Authority belatedly and the vehicle Tata Sumo used in

the incident being recovered at the instance of the

petitioner Sri.Narayanaswamy, the Revisional Authority

has rejected the revision petition. The material aspects

have been rightly analyzed by the Tribunal in

dismissing the applications. It was further submitted

- 11 -

that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15005/2019 and

15006/2019 having filed memos seeking permission of

the Court to withdraw the petitions, again filing

application to withdraw the withdrawal memo is wholly

unjustifiable and the same cannot be permitted by this

Court.

9. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the material on record.

10. As regards the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, the enquiry

though has been conducted as per the settled principles

of law in giving a report, the Enquiry Officer no doubt

has observed that the complainants have failed to

identify the petitioners, it has been held that the

charges leveled against the petitioners have been proved

on the basis of the material evidence available on

record. Merely for the reasons that the complainants

- 12 -

have failed to identify the petitioners, notwithstanding

the satisfactory material evidence available on record to

establish the misconduct of the petitioners, the enquiry

report cannot be held to be unjustifiable. The enquiry

officer has categorically given a finding on this aspect

that the charges leveled against the petitioners are duly

proved. On further appeal though the appeals filed by

all the petitioners have been rejected, in the revision

petitions filed by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15005/2019

and 15006/2019, the Revisional Authority having

modified the penalty order, rejecting the revision

petition of the petitioner in W.P.No.45749/2018 who

was similarly placed in all respects cannot be

appreciated. However, the judgment referred with

respect to plea of honourable acquittal, with great

respect is not applicable in the facts and circumstances

of the present case.

11. The rule of parity is squarely applicable to

the facts of the case on hand. No specific reasons have

- 13 -

been assigned by the Revisional Authority to reject the

revision petition of Mr.Narayanaswamy. The

discrimination being ex-facie apparent, we find that the

order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Revisional

Authority in the same set of facts as that of the other

two writ petitions warrants interference by this Court to

the said extent since the same is not properly

appreciated by the Tribunal.

12. The arguments advanced by the learned

Government Pleader inasmuch as the delay caused and

recovery made at the instance of Mr.Narayanaswamy

would not be a ground for rejection of the revision

petition. Moreover, such reasons are not forthcoming in

the order impugned. On this ground alone, we are of the

considered view that W.P.No.45749/2018 requires to be

allowed in part setting aside the order dated 05.07.2012

passed by the Revisional Authority - respondent No.1,

modifying the order on par with the orders passed in

- 14 -

respect of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15005/2019 and

15006/2019. Accordingly, the order of dismissal passed

by the Disciplinary Authority is modified.

13. As regards W.P.Nos.15005/2019 and

15006/2019, we are not inclined to accept the

application filed by the petitioners seeking for

withdrawal of memo dated 13.12.2019 filed before this

Court. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the order

passed by this Court on 16.12.2019 and the same is

quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in these three matters and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. This is a peculiar case where petitioners, in first two writ petitions and petitioner in third writ petition while working as constables in High Grounds Police Station and CCB Police Station respectively, are said to have committed heinous crime of dacoity in the house of complainant - Sanjeev A.Kurup; motive for the said offence is to forcibly take away a valuable painting available in the house of the complainant, which is said to

- 15 -

have purchased by him in the year 2002 under a receipt and said offence is said to have committed by the petitioners in the company of other 3 civilians.

3. The material on record would indicate that the valuable painting robbed from the house of the complainant is recovered. So also the handcuffs used to handcuff the complainant, who was taken away along with the painting and the vehicle used for the said offence. Thereafter, in the criminal prosecution launched in that behalf, there appears to be an order of acquittal against all the persons including the petitioners herein. In the meanwhile, it is also seen that a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioners herein, where the charges leveled against them are proved, based on which the disciplinary authority passed an order of discontinuing them from services. Subsequently, when the same was taken up in an appeal by two out of three petitioners herein, the State represented by Home Minister with the recommendation of the Joint Secretary, is said to have reduced the said punishment from that of dismissal to lower time scale for a period of 5 years without cumulative effect. It is this order, which is sought to be challenged in two writ petitions by said two petitioners, who could save their employment with the intervention of political powers. Whereas the person who has suffered the order of dismissal, against which filed an appeal and lost in the said appeal also, has come up in third writ petition challenging the said order on the ground that

- 16 -

there is no parity in the punishment handed down to two of the petitioners who are co- accused along with him and when they are given reinstatement, he is denied of the same.

4. When the entire material on record is looked into, this Court is completely bewildered and shocked as to the manner in which the entire proceedings is conducted by the police officers both in criminal prosecution and also in the inquiry. It is seen that though the petitioners herein are proved to be guilty in the inquiry, there is an attempt by every single officer to dilute the offence said to be committed by them. It is needless to state that the Sessions Court was also more happier in acquitting them than looking into the material on record.

5. In any event, entire thing appears to be so badly managed in getting an order of acquittal from the Sessions Court and with the help of that and also with political interference, two of the petitioners who are said to have committed the offence of robbery by utilizing their police badge are allowed to continue in service without having any kind of care or concern for the society. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 would like to delve deep into this matter, to see how such kind of slipshod inquiry could be conducted to dilute the complaint which is given against said accused persons and also the manner in which the Sessions Court has conducted the trial mainly with a view to acquit them without even considering the material on record. It only reflects the

- 17 -

sorry state of affairs both in police department as well as in subordinate courts, who are turning blind eye to reality, also somehow disposing of the matters with their attention fixed to the quota system that they are required to follow, instead of delivering justice in the manner known to law, which has led to filing of these three writ petitions. Therefore, this Court feel that the entire records with reference to criminal prosecution and other records related to departmental inquiry will have to be looked into before deciding these writ petitions.

6. Hence, the registry is directed to secure entire records from the Sessions Court in SC.No.258/2009. So far as the records pertaining to disciplinary proceedings and appeal proceedings are concerned, the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure the same.

7. After the aforesaid records are produced, post these matters before this Bench for further hearing as these matters are treated as part-heard by this Bench."

14. It appears in apprehension of such an order

and in order to escape the rigor of such observations,

the petitioners in WP.Nos.15005/2019 and

15006/2019, had filed the memo for withdrawal on

13.12.2019 but the same was not accepted and the

- 18 -

order dated 16.12.2019 was passed as aforesaid.

Application [I.A.No.1/2021] filed for withdrawal of memo

for withdrawal reads thus:

"The petitioner most respectfully submits as under:

1. The above writ petition is filed questioning the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal passed Common judgment/Order in passed in Application No.4489/2012 Connected with Applications No.4490/2012 and Application No.6738/2012 dated 14.03.2018.

2. The above writ petition was heard on admission. The three writ petitions are clubbed together. The petitioner felt that at that stage, it would be appropriate to withdraw the writ petition without prosecuting on merits. But the same was not decided, though the same was put up. But the petitioner, after obtaining the advise, felt it necessary to continue the writ petition on merits. Hence, the instant application.

3. The petitioner filed the memo for withdrawal of the writ petition on 13.12.2019, wherein the petition was fought for withdrawal. The petitioner wanted not to press the writ petition. The said memo is pending consideration. It is just and necessary to permit the withdrawal of memo dated 13.12.2019 and grant leave to

- 19 -

prosecute the writ petition on merits. If the petition is allowed to continue on merits by withdrawing the memo, no hardship or injury will be caused to the respondent.

Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the instant application and permit the petitioner to withdraw the memo for withdrawal dated 13.12.2019 and may proceed the writ petition on merits in the interest of justice and equity."

15. The conduct of the petitioners in this regard

is highly deprecated. The litigants cannot be permitted

to take different stance at different points of time having

regard to the nature of adjudication. It is the bounden

duty of the parties to maintain decency and decorum of

the Courts. Any document filed before the Court has

some sanctity in the eye of law and the same cannot

permitted to be withdrawn to suit the convenience of the

parties. Given the circumstances, as observed, it is

nothing but abuse of the Court more particularly by the

police constables who are supposed to maintain

discipline and decorum of the Courts. The confidence of