The State Of Karnataka vs Miss Qumer Begum
2021 Latest Caselaw 3486 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

               W.P. No.9842/2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
MULTI STORIED BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                            ...PETITIONER

            (BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP.)

AND :

MISS. QUMER BEGUM
D/O. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS EX-GRAM PANCHAYATH
SECRETARY/PDO
RESIDENT OF 1/9/52/B
NEAR NOORBAGH FUNCTION HALL
AZADNAGAR
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 101.
                                           ...RESPONDENT


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR
                             -2-



ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.09.2019
IN APPLICATION NO.6890/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU AND ISSUE ANY WRIT/S, ORDER/S.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY,   S. SUJATHA, J., PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

The petitioner - State of Karnataka has assailed

the order dated 06.09.2019 passed in Application

No.6890/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative

Tribunal at Bengaluru, (`Tribunal' for short) allowing the

application filed by the respondent herein and setting

aside the order dated 11.10.2017 - Annexure-A16

passed by the State Government and further directing

the State Government to pay all the financial benefits

for which the respondent herein is legally entitled,

within a time frame of four months from the date of

receipt of copy of the order.

2. The respondent herein was working as a

Gram Panchayath Secretary in Mittimalkapura Gram

Panchayath during the relevant period. On the

allegation that she was involved in an act of receiving

bribe, she was kept under suspension by an order dated

21.10.2005. On the basis of the same, Special Case

No.1/2006 was filed and the respondent was convicted

by an order dated 30.08.2008. On further appeal by the

respondent challenging the order dated 30.08.2008

before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi

Bench in Criminal Appeal No.3524/2008, the same

came to be allowed on 16.06.2010, setting aside the

order of conviction, pursuant to which, the respondent

approached the petitioner to reinstate her by submitting

a representation dated 28.06.2010. Subsequently she

was reinstated on 11.02.2011 as per the order passed

by the CEO, Zilla Panchayath, Raichur and was given

posting to Matamari Gram Panchayath, Raichur taluk

and district. On 22.08.2011, the Additional Registrar of

Enquiries-4, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, issued

Articles of Charge against the respondent. The enquiry

was conducted. Three witnesses were examined. The

Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved against the

respondent. On recommendation made by the Hon'ble

Lokayuktha, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order

of penalty of compulsory retirement. Being aggrieved,

the respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal

having analysed the material evidence on record,

allowed the application, setting aside the impugned

order dated 11.10.2017 and directed the Government to

pay all financial benefits. Hence, this writ petition by

the State.

3. Learned Government Pleader would submit

that the Tribunal grossly erred in allowing the

application, dehorse the Criminal Appeal filed by the

respondent herein was disposed of, observing that the

prosecution has not proved the demand and acceptance

of illegal gratification by the respondent beyond

reasonable doubt. It was submitted that it was not

Hon'ble acquittal and as such, the same would not have

been given primacy to set aside the order of the

Disciplinary Authority. It was further argued that the

Articles of Charge issued on 22.08.2011 is not belated

and as such the order of the Tribunal is not justifiable.

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the

respondent was dismissed after passing of the

impugned order of conviction in Special Case

No.1/2006. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in Criminal

Appeal No.3524/2008, Articles of Charge was issued.

Hence, there was no delay in issuing Articles of Charge.

Thus, the finding of the Tribunal based on these

reasons is perverse and accordingly, seeks for setting

aside the order impugned.

4. We have carefully considered the

submissions of the learned Government Pleader and

perused the material on record.

5. It is evident that the Tribunal has dismissed

the application filed by the respondent, mainly on two

grounds. Firstly that there was honourable acquittal of

the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.3524/2008

(dated 16.06.2010) observing that the witnesses who

were examined in the disciplinary proceedings were the

very same witnesses even in the criminal proceedings. It

has been categorically observed that though there were

two proceedings, namely criminal proceedings before

the Criminal Court and the departmental enquiry before

the Enquiry Officer, but the set of materials,

witnesses, circumstances, allegations, date of the

alleged offence all are similar in both the proceedings.

In such circumstances, placing reliance on two

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CAPTN. PAUL

ANTHONY VS. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. AND

ANOTHER reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679 and G.M.

TANK VS. STATE OF GUJARATH AND OTHERS

reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446, the Tribunal has held

that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the

disciplinary authority is bad in law.

6. It is significant to note that the alleged

incident took place on 19.10.2005. The respondent was

kept under suspension by an order dated 21.10.2005.

The order of conviction in Special Case No.1/2006 was

passed on 30.08.2008. The respondent was dismissed

from service by the Deputy Secretary, Zilla Panchayat,

Raichur, on 30.05.2009. Order in Criminal Appeal was

passed on 16.06.2010 reversing the order of conviction.

On 28.06.2010 representation was submitted by the

respondent to reinstate her subsequent to the order

passed in Criminal Appeal No.3524/2008 and order

dated 11.02.2011 was passed by the CEO, Zilla

Panchayat, Raichur, reinstating the respondent into

service. Articles of Charge was issued on 22.08.2011.

These aspects would clearly indicate that there was

inordinate delay from the date of alleged incident in

issuing the Articles of Charge. The defence taken by the

State that the order of dismissal was made immediately

on 30.05.2009 - subsequent to the order passed in

Special Case No.1/2006 would not efface the delay

caused in issuing Articles of Charge for the reason that,

even the Articles of Charge issued on 22.08.2011

subsequent to passing of the order in Criminal Appeal

No.3524/2008, if reckoned, is also found to be belated

since the order in Criminal Appeal No.3524/2008 was

passed on 16.06.2010. We find no substantial reasons

explained by the petitioners for the delay caused in

issuing the Articles of Charge on 22.08.2011.

7. On these grounds, the Tribunal has rightly

considered and allowed the application, further referring

to the Circular of the Government dated 26.06.1996.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no perversity or

illegality in the order dated 06.09.2019 passed in

Application No.6890/2017 by the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru. We find no

reasons to interfere with the impugned order.

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

mgn/-