Karnataka High Court
Gopya Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2021
Author: Satish Chandra Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.12262 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
GOPYA NAIK S/O. GANGA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
OFFICE OF SHIKARIPURA SUB-DIVISION,
SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
RESIDING AT NO.809/A7, B BLOCK
SARASWATHI NAGARA
DAVANGERE - 577004
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, H.C.G.P.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.04.2021 MADE IN A.
2
NO.7009/2020 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW A.NO.7009/2020 ON THE FILE OF
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE,
IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 14.07.2021, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
17.04.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for short) in
Application No.7009/2020. By the aforesaid order, the
Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion
under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules' for the sake of
brevity) on the ground that Articles of charge was issued
against the petitioner in respect of a disciplinary
proceeding.
2. The application filed before the Tribunal by the
petitioner discloses that when the petitioner was working
as the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat,
Hagaribommanahalli, construction of 4495 houses was
entrusted to Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development
Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'KRIDL' for short) Hadagali
Sub-Division. In respect of the said work a complaint was
lodged on 04.06.2015 by Sri.Shankaragouda with the
Lokayukta Police against the Assistant Director of KRIDL.
The Deputy Registrar, Enquiries-1, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru, issued a notice dated 23.01.2018 to the
petitioners and two others to submit their explanation.
The petitioner submitted his representation and sought
additional time to furnish better explanation. Thereafter
on 24.02.2018 he submitted an additional explanation.
However, the Karnataka Upalokayukta was not satisfied
with the explanation and after an enquiry submitted a
report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta
Act, 1984 and requested that the enquiry may be
entrusted to it. The State Government issued a
Government order dated 25.01.2019 entrusting the
enquiry to the Upalokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA
Rules, who issued an Articles of charge. The petitioner
challenged the order of entrustment as well as the Articles
of charge before the Tribunal in A . No. 3956/2019.
3. In the meanwhile, the juniors of the petitioner
were granted promotion under Rule 32 of CCA Rules.
Therefore, petitioner filed Application No.7009/2020 for a
direction to the respondent to consider his case for
promotion as Deputy Conservator of Forest.
4. The tribunal clubbed both the applications and
held that the order of entrustment of the enquiry by the
State Government in favour of the Upalokayukta was just
and proper and the veracity of the Articles of charge
cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE & OTHERS vs. PRABHASH CHANDRA
MIRDHA [(2012) 11 SCC 565] and in the case of
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER vs KUNISETTY
SATYANARAYANA [(2006) 12 SCC 28]. Insofar as
Application No.7009/2020 the Tribunal did not accept the
contention of the petitioner that in view of the judgment in
the case of UNION OF INDIA vs. K.V. JANAKIRAMAN
[AIR 1991 SC 2010] he was entitled for promotion. The
Tribunal held that under Rule 32 promotions were
accorded on 31.01.2020, while articles of charge against
the petitioner was issued prior thereto i.e., on 24.04.2019.
The Tribunal, therefore, held that the petitioner is not
entitled to be considered for promotion under Rule 32 in
view of pending disciplinary proceedings.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion under
Rule 32 of the CCA Rules, the present petition is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the persons who are junior than the
petitioner are provided with promotion under Rule 32 of
CCA Rules and that notwithstanding the departmental
enquiry, he too should be granted the said benefit.
7. It is relevant to note that promotion under
Rule 32 is a stop gap arrangement indulged in by the
Government to temporarily fill a vacant post. No person
has a right to be considered for promotion under Rule 32
of the CCA Rules. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim
any right to be considered for promotion under Rule 32 of
CCA Rules.
8. Be that as it may, as the petitioner is stated to
be involved in a colossal misconduct, namely, release of
more than Rs.20,00,00,000/- in respect of the construction
of 4495 houses and as a departmental enquiry is pending
against him, he cannot be granted the benefit of promotion
under Rule 32 of CCA Rules.
9. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JANAKIRAMAN
(supra) is clearly not applicable to the facts of this case as
in the case of JANAKIRAMAN (supra) regular promotions
were involved. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to
the promotion under Rule 32 of the CCA Rules.
10. The Tribunal has considered the same with
utmost circumspection and we do not feel it appropriate to
disturb the findings. Hence, this writ petition lacks merit
and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
hnm
