Gurulingappa S/O Shivalingappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 233 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

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


     WRIT PETITION No. 202430 OF 2021(S-RES)

Between:

Gurulingappa,
S/o. Shivalingappa Rukumpur,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at Krishnanagar,
Kalburgi-585 102
                                           ... Petitioner
(By Sri G.K.Bhat, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka,
       By its Principal Secretary,
       Religious Endowment and Muzrai
       Vidhana Soudha
       Bengaluru-560 001.

2.     The Regional Commissioner and
       Disciplinary Authority,
       Kalburgi Division,
       Kalburgi 585 101.
                                        ... Respondents
(By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, AGA)
                                    2




      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to a) Issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing the impugned order as per Annexure-B dated
21.06.2011     in    No.PRAAGU/SHISTUHU/12/2010-11/2110
and etc.,


      In    this    writ    petition,   arguments    being   heard,
judgment reserved, coming on for pronouncement of
orders today, this Court made the following:


                                ORDER

This writ petition is filed by petitioner assailing the

order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the respondent No.2

produced at Annexure-B.

2. I have heard Sri G K Bhat, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri Shivakumar Tengli, learned

AGA for the respondent-State.

3. Sri G K Bhat, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that, the petitioner was working as

a Sirasthedar in the office of the Deputy Commissioner

Bidar and a criminal case was initiated against him for

misappropriation of funds. Simultaneously,

Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him and

thereafter, petitioner was removed from the service by

an order dated 21.06.2007. He further contended that

the said order is contrary to law and though there is

delay of ten years in challenging the same, satisfactory

explanation has been offered in the writ petition. He

further contended that the impugned order is nonest

and liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the

writ petition itself is not maintainable on the ground that

the petitioner is a Government employee and he has to

approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for

suitable relief. He further contended that there is delay

of ten years in filing the writ petition. Therefore, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed on delay and laches.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was

holding a Civil Post in the office of Deputy

Commissioner, Bidar and he has assailed the order

passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissing him

from the service. In view of the law declared by Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union

of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125, I am of the

opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and

therefore, same is disposed of reserving liberty to the

petitioner to approach the Karnataka Administrative

Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB