Karnataka High Court
Smt Usha R vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 December, 2021
Bench: K.S.Mudagal, R. Nataraj
R.P.No.197/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
R.P.No.197/2021
IN
WRIT PETITION No.9495/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. USHA R.
W/O RAMESH B.R.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
R/AT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR,
ELEGANT SILVER OAK APARTMENT
SPENCER ROAD, FRAZER TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005 ...PETITIONER
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
R.P.No.197/2021
2
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 027
3. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS
TTMC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR
'A' BLOCK, BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
4. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI B.S.GOUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 01.06.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) IN W.P.NO.9495/2021
(S-KAT).
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, R.NATARAJ. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard.
2. The petitioner was working as Accounts
Superintendent in the Finance Department of respondent
No.1. Under the order dated 09.07.2020 her services were
lent to the Urban Development Department i.e. respondent
No.2.
R.P.No.197/2021
3. Under the order of respondent No.2 dated
09.03.2020, the petitioner was deputed to work in Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under respondent No.4.
Under the order of respondent No.1 dated 09.07.2020 she was
transferred to the office of Registrar General, High Court of
Karnataka. Under the order dated 29.12.2020, the order dated
09.07.2020 so far it relates to the petitioner was cancelled and
her services were ordered to be continued in BBMP.
4. Respondent No.4 issued communication dated
04.02.2021 to respondent No.2 Urban Development
Department stating that the petitioner is already relieved from
the service. It was also stated that since there is charge sheet
filed against her in Crime No.82/2020 of Banashankari police
Station and there are several complaints against her, her
services in BBMP are not required.
5. The petitioner challenged that communication
dated 04.02.2021 before Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in
Application No.1037/2021. The Tribunal by order dated
21.05.2021 dismissed the said application. Challenging that
order, she preferred Writ Petition No.9495/2021 (S-KAT). On
R.P.No.197/2021
01.06.2021, this Court dismissed the said petition upholding
the order of the Tribunal.
6. The above petition is filed seeking review of the
order dated 01.06.2021 on the following four grounds:
(i) The observation of the Court that the petitioner
was charge sheeted in Crime No.174/2020 on the complaint of
one Lokesh in respect of her official acts is incorrect.
(ii) In Crime No.174/2020 'B' report was filed.
(iii) The statements in the order that Lokesh filed the
complaint against the petitioner on 18.01.2021 alleging that
she demanded bribe for processing the bills is incorrect. His
complaint dated 18.01.2021 under Annexure-A6 was not to
the Police and no charge sheet was filed.
(iv) This Court has not considered prayer No.2 of the
petitioner for payment of her salary for her waiting period as
she was not given posting without her mistake.
7. Perusal of the judgment dated 01.06.2021 shows
that the petition was dismissed referring to the complaint and
the charge sheet filed against her. But that was not the basic
R.P.No.197/2021
or sole ground of dismissal. Substantial grounds of dismissal
of the application by the Tribunal and the writ petition by this
Court are that the transfer is condition of service and the
petitioner has no indefeasible right to continue in a particular
post. Incidentally the Tribunal and this Court observed that
since the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in
criminal case and there were complaints against her order of
respondent No.4 was justifiable.
8. Upto para 4 of the order, the reference is made to
the order of the Tribunal and the contentions of parties. Only
para 12 contains the reasons.
9. Crime No.174/2020 was registered against the
petitioner on the complaint of A.V.Girish for the offences
punishable under Sections 384, 504, 506 read with Section 34
of IPC. In that complaint, after investigation, Byadarahalli
police have submitted 'B' summary report and in that no
charge sheet was filed against her. However, Mahalakshmi
wife of Girish filed complaint in Crime No.82/2020 before
Banashankari Police. In that case the charge sheet was filed
R.P.No.197/2021
against the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC.
10. One R.Lokesh filed the complaint dated
18.01.2021 to the Principal Director, Karnataka State
Accounts and Audit Department against the petitioner
informing about several complaints filed by several people to
the Commissioner, Deputy Director (Administration), BBMP,
Joint Registrar. He alleged that the petitioner is working on
deputation since past 10 years in BBMP only and spoiling the
name of the department, therefore she be transferred to her
parent department immediately.
11. In para 4 of the judgment, by inadvertent error, it
was stated that charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in
Crime No.174/2020 on the complaint filed by R.Lokesh for the
offences punishable under Sections 384, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC. Though in the preceding paragraph it is
stated that Crime No.174/2020 was registered on the
complaint of Girish, that is apparently accidental error.
R.P.No.197/2021
Therefore, in para 4 first two sentences shall be substituted by
the following:
"Close on the heels of this, complaint was
lodged by R.Lokesh against the petitioner on
18.01.2021 about several complaints filed against
her before her higher authorities and police. Upon
complaint of Mahalakshmi Wife of Girish, the
jurisdictional police registered Crime No.82/2020
against the petitioner and charge sheeted her for
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504,
506, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC."
12. Though this Court stayed the charge sheet filed in
Crime No.82/2020, which was registered on the basis of
complaint of Mahalakshmi wife of Girish, in para 7 of the
order, by inadvertent error, it is stated that complaint filed by
Mr.R.Lokesh was stayed by this Court. Therefore 5th sentence
in para 7 of the order shall be substituted by the following
sentence:
R.P.No.197/2021
"The Tribunal also noticed that the charge
sheet filed in criminal case filed by wife of Mr.Girish
was stayed by this Court."
13. In para 9 at page 9, 5th line again it is stated that
the complaint lodged by R.Lokesh was stayed by this Court in
Crl.P.No.2247/2021. In that line the word 'R.Lokesh' shall be
substituted by the words 'Mahalakshmi wife of Girish'.
14. Similarly in para 12 of the order, in page 10, last
one line, after the word Crime No.174/2020, the sentence
shall be completed by placing full point. In the next line, word
'and' shall be substituted by the words 'In another case'. In
para 12 of the order, in page 11, 1st line provision of '384'
shall be substituted by '323' and after 506, '341' shall be
included. Reading of the said sentence shall be "In another
case a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 341 and Section 34 of IPC".
15. In para 11 the sentences, "a perusal of the
complaint in Crime No.174/2020 discloses that there were
allegations against the petitioner that she demanded illegal
gratification to process the bills for payment. Hence,
R.P.No.197/2021
respondent No.4 felt it appropriate to return the services of
the petitioner to the borrowing department, namely, the
respondent No.2 herein" shall be substituted by the sentence:
'On perusing the complaint in Crime
No.82/2020 and other complaints, respondent No.4
felt it appropriate to return the services of the
petitioner to the borrowing department, namely
respondent No.2 herein'.
16. In the last sentence of page 11 words 'was a
charge sheet' shall be substituted with "were allegations".
17. The aforesaid apparent inadvertent errors
themselves did not lead to dismissal of the petition. The core
reasoning was that petitioner has no indefeasible right to seek
continuation in a particular post. Therefore the final order of
dismissal of petition does not call for any review. Now by order
dated 14.12.2021 the petitioner is promoted as Audit Officer
and transferred to the office of Director, Kidwai Memorial
Institute of Oncology. On that count also, the petition does not
survive for further consideration.
R.P.No.197/2021
18. If respondent No.4 did not permit the petitioner to
report before it, she should have gone and reported before her
parent department for further orders. That does not entitle
her to salary without work. Therefore that part of prayer for
review is also unsustainable.
For the aforesaid reasons, the review petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
