Sri Revanappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2980 Kant

                             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.56135 of 2016 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. REVANAPPA
S/O LATE HALKURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT HALEPETE,
KADUR TOWN,
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
        TO THE GOVERNMENT,
        DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
        ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
        BANGALORE-560 001.

2.      THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
        ENQUIRY OFFICER
        DHARWAD DISTRICT,
        DHARWAD-580001

3.      THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
        DEVELOPMENT BOARD
        REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY,
        NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
        BENGALURU-560002.              ... RESPONDENTS
                                  2



(BY SRI B. RAJENDRAPRASAD, ADVOCATE, H.C.G.P. FOR R1 &
R2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA     STATE    ADMINISTRATIVE   TRIBUNAL    IN
APPLICATION NO.8795/2002 [ANNEXURE-C] AND QUASH THE
ORDER DTD:8.1.2002 [ANNEXURE-A6] PASSED BY THE R-1 AS
THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO CCA
RULES AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.

     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

15.06.2016 passed by the Karnataka Administrative

Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) in

Application No.8795/2002. By the aforesaid order, the

Tribunal refused to interfere with the penalty imposed by

the respondent No.1 to recover Rs.3,33,000/- along with

interest and withholding Rs.200/- out of the pension every

month on permanent basis.

2. The Application filed before the Tribunal

discloses that the petitioner was working as a Land

Acquisition Officer in Dharwad district. In respect of a

certain land bearing Sy. No.253 of Naralakatti village,

which was acquired under Section 28(4) of The Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Board Act, the petitioner had

released the compensation of Rs.3,33,000/- to the

M/s.Fruit Growers' Association. In this regard, the

respondent No.1 found certain administrative lapses on the

part of the petitioner which culminated in issuance of

Articles of charge and the appointment of an Enquiry

Officer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry

submitted a report stating therein that one of the charges

against him was proved. The respondent No.1 being the

Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply of the

petitioner passed an order of punishment dated

08.01.2002 in terms of which, it was ordered to recover

Rs.3,33,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum from

the retirement benefits of the petitioner and to deduct

Rs.200/- from his pension every month permanently.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the

petitioner challenged it before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the

petitioner that the action of the petitioner in releasing

compensation was a quasi judicial act which was subject to

appeal and that therefore was not a misconduct. The

contention that the KIADB could have challenged the

release of the compensation did not find favour with the

Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. K.K.

DHAWAN reported in [(1993) 2 SCC 56]. The Tribunal

held that the conduct of the petitioner in releasing

compensation to an unauthorised person was indeed a

grave misconduct and thus dismissed the application.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal,

the present writ petition is filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated his contention that the Enquiry Officer blindly

concluded that charge No.1 was proved against the

petitioner without any corresponding evidence. He further

contended that the act of releasing the compensation was

based on the available records and that he has exercised

jurisdiction in good faith with no mala fide intention. He

contended that either the Government or the KIADB must

have challenged the order granting compensation and that

the same cannot be termed as misconduct.

7. We have considered the submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. The fact that the petitioner had released

compensation in favour of the Chairman, Fruit Growers'

Co-operative Society at Naralakatti is not in dispute. It is

also not in dispute that the land in Sy. No.253 belonged to

the Government and the same was mentioned in the

revenue records. Ideally, having regard to the claim of the

Government and the Co-operative Society, it was

incumbent upon the petitioner to have referred the same

to the Civil Court for resolution.

9. In the case on hand, charge No.1 related to

the aforesaid misconduct and the same was substantially

proved before the Enquiry Officer. The respondent No.1

has merely ordered the recovery of the compensation paid

along with the statutory rate of interest, and therefore, no

fault could be found with the order of the respondent No.1

in directing recovery of Rs.3,33,000/- along with interest

at the rate of 12% per annum. The further penalty of

recovery of Rs.200/- per month from the pension on

permanent basis from the petitioner is a flea bite

punishment imposed on an Officer who, close to his

retirement has abused his position ignoring the claim of

the Government to the land and compromised the interest

of the State. We therefore, do not find any reason to

interfere with the order of the Tribunal, and therefore, the

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm