Karnataka High Court
K.V.Nanjunda Swamy vs High Court Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
W.P No.14717/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.14717 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN :
K.V. NANJUNDA SWAMY
S/O VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ACCOUNT SHERISTEDAR
(DISMISSED FROM SERVICE)
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
AND J.M.F.C. COURT, ARASIKERE
RESIDING AT GAYATHRI EXTESNION
2ND CROSS, NAGASAMUDRA ROAD
CHANNARAYAPATNA-573 116 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. A.R. HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
BY REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573 201
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER (CAO) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
W.P No.14717/2018
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
20.12.2008 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN D.E. NO.2/2007 VIDE ANNEX-E
AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1
VIDE ANNEX-G EXONERATING THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGE AND
DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN SERVICE
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL PAY AND
ALLOWANCES WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE TREATING THE
SUSPENSION PERIOD AS ON DUTY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 04.02.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner was working as an Accounts Shiresthedar in
the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere in
Hassan District. It was alleged against him that he had
married one Smt. Mahadevi during the subsistence of his
marriage with one Smt. Pushpalatha. A Departmental
Enquiry was conducted and two charges were framed. Both
charges were held proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed
the order of dismissal. The Appellate Authority modified it to
compulsory retirement. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Shri. A.R. Holla, learned Advocate for petitioner
submitted that:
W.P No.14717/2018
• as per Sub-Rule (23) of Rule 11 of KCSR1 an Enquiry
Officer is required to record finding on each Article of
charge. The Enquiry Officer has merged both Articles
of Charges and it is impermissible in law;
• there is no evidence to prove that petitioner had
contracted second marriage while his first marriage
was subsisting;
• as per Rule 25(2) of KCSR, the Appellate Authority
ought to have considered whether the procedure
prescribed in the Rules had been complied with; and
• the complaint was given by second wife's father and
as such second wife had no complaint.
Therefore, the penalty order is unsustainable in law.
3. In reply, Shri. Madhukar Deshpande, learned
Advocate for the respondents submitted that second wife
had filed M.C. No.21/2004 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Srirangapatna seeking a declaration that her
marriage with petitioner was a nullity on the specific ground
Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957
W.P No.14717/2018
that petitioner had a living wife by name Pushpalatha. The
judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is a
judgment in 'rem'.
4. With regard to clubbing of charges, he submitted
that both charges are inter-linked and therefore, no error
has been committed by the Enquiry Officer in considering
them together.
5. He further submitted that both Pushpalatha and
Mahadevi were examined as prosecution witnesses. The
judgment and decree in M.C. No.21/2004 has been marked
as an exhibit and based on cogent evidence, the Enquiry
Officer has held the charges as proved.
6. As regards the penalty, Shri. Deshpande
submitted that a lenient view has been taken by the
Appellate Authority in reducing the punishment to
compulsory retirement. Therefore, no interference is called
for by this Court.
W.P No.14717/2018
7. I have carefully considered rival contentions and
perused the records.
8. Smt. Mahadevi's father Shri. H. Govindaiah gave
a complaint to the High Court. It was registered as HVC
No.93/2006. A disciplinary enquiry was instituted and
following charges were framed:
"(1) That you Sri.K.V. Nanjundaswamy, Accounts
Sheristedar, Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Court Arasikere
being Government servant you had a wife by name
Smt. S. Pushpalatha living shall contracted with another
marriage by name Smt. S.G. Mahadevi @ Mahadevamma
concealing the first marriage, deceit Smt. Mahadevi and also
without obtaining the permission from the Government and
thereby your have committed mis-conduct and unbecoming of
a Government servant and thereby you have violated Rule.3
Sub Rule (i) and (iii) and also Rule 28(i) of Karnataka Civil
Service (Conduct) Rules 1966.
(2) That you at the time of contracting another marriage
with Smt. Mahadevi concealing the marriage deceit
Smt. S.G. Mahadevi @ Mahadevamma you have received
Rs.50,000/- cash, one golden chain, one golden ring and four
costly dresses from Sri. H. Govindaiah, father of
Smt. S.G. Mahadevamma at the time of marriage and by
performing this marriage Sri. H. Govindaiah being your father-
in-law having incurred an expenditure towards marriage to the
W.P No.14717/2018
tune of Rs.2.5 lakhs, which caused loss to him and the same
has to be reimbursed by you to your father-in-law
Sri. H. Govindaiah. Thereby you have committed mis-conduct
and unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby you
have violated Rule 3 sub rule (i) and (iii) of Karanataka Civil
Service (Conduct) Rules 1966."
9. On behalf of prosecution four witnesses were
examined. P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is his daughter
Mahadevi, P.W.4 is petitioner's first wife Pushpalatha.
Exs.P1 to P10 have been marked. Exs.P6 and P7 are the
judgment and decree in M.C. No.21/2004. Along with the
Statement of objections also, the judgment and decree in
M.C. No.21/2004 has been produced as Annexure-R10. It
shows that petitioner has remained ex parte in those
proceedings. It is recorded in the judgment that without
disclosing his previous marriage with Pushpalatha,
petitioner had married Mahadevi and accordingly, the said
marriage has been declared as null and void.
10. Shri. Deshpande submitted that the said
judgment has attained finality and the same is not disputed
by learned Advocate for petitioner.
W.P No.14717/2018
11. It is recorded in para 27 of the enquiry report
that petitioner had entered into a compromise with
Govindaiah and paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. When a query
was made on this aspect, Shri. Holla, for the petitioner
submitted that he has no explanation on this aspect.
12. The main ground urged by Shri. Holla is that two
charges have been dealt with together and the same is
impermissible in law. The first charge is marrying for the
second time and the second charge is receiving Rs.50,000/-
and jewellery from Govindaiah.
13. Shri. Deshpande is right in his submission that
both charges are interlinked and could be dealt together.
According to him, the decree in M.C. No. 21/2004 and
payment of Rs.1,10,000/- by petitioner to Shri. Govindaiah,
clearly demonstrate that both charges are interlinked. He is
also right in his submission that under Section 41 of the
Indian Evidence Act, a judgment in a matrimonial dispute
is a judgment in 'rem'.
W.P No.14717/2018
14. A careful reading of the charges shows that they
are inextricably interconnected and therefore, in the facts of
this case, there is no infraction of Rule 11(23) of KCSR.
15. In view of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary
Authority has passed an order of dismissal from service and
the same has been modified by the Appellate Authority into
compulsory retirement.
16. It is settled that while considering a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging
the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty order, High
Court shall not ordinarily interfere except where petitioner
successfully demonstrates that there was violation of
principles of natural justice or infraction of statutory
provisions. [See: Deputy General Manager (Appellate
Authority) and Others Vs Ajai Kumar Srivastava2].
(2021) 2 SCC 612
W.P No.14717/2018
17. In view of the above, in the considered opinion
of this Court, this is not a case for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
18. Resultantly, petition fails and it is accordingly
dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
