The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... vs Smt Rajashree Udagatti
2022 Latest Caselaw 7921 Kant

                                               -1-




                                                        WP No. 101452 of 2022


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                             DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
                                            PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
                                               AND
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 101452 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         REPRESENTED BY ITS
                         PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                         REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
                         M. S. BUILDING, BANGALURU
                   2.    THE COMMISSIONER FOR SURVEY
                         SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS,
                         K. R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE
                   3.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                         DHARWAD DISTRICT,
                         DHARWAD-580001
                                                                ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
                   SMT RAJASHREE UDAGATTI
                   D/O MALLESHAPPA,
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R                  AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           WORKING AS SURVEYOR
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
Date: 2022.06.03   OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
11:20:27 +0530
                   LAND RECORDS, NAVALGUND TALUK,
                   DHARWAD-582208
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
                   227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
                   WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
                   BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
                   BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.3577/2019 DATED 19.11.2019
                   VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
                              -2-




                                         WP No. 101452 of 2022


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


                           ORDER

This writ petition by the Government calls in question

the judgment dated 19.11.2019 rendered by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi, (for

short "Service Tribunal") whereby respondent-employee's

Application No.3577/2019 having been favoured the

penalty of withholding of five increments with cumulative

effect has been set at naught.

2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for

the petitioner vehemently submits that the Service

Tribunal is not justified in granting indulgence in the

matter inasmuch as it is always prerogative of the

employer to conduct disciplinary inquiry and levy penalty;

alternatively, he submits that even if the impugned

penalty order is set aside, liberty ought to have been

accorded to the Government to resume the proceedings

from the stage of show-cause notice in question.

WP No. 101452 of 2022

3. Having heard the learned Government Advocate

and having perused the petition papers we decline

indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the penalty of

withholding five annual increments of an employee that

too with cumulative effect constitutes a major penalty and

therefore, a disciplinary inquiry with the procedure

prescribed for imposing such a penalty ought to have been

held. This reason has animated the order of the Service

Tribunal and therefore, it cannot be faulted. The

argument, to the contrary, virtually amounts to placing

imprimatur on the penalty order, that is made in gross

violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. The other contention of learned Government

Advocate that the Tribunal after setting at naught the

impugned order of penalty, ought to have reserved liberty

to resume the disciplinary proceedings now pales into

insignificance inasmuch as the Tribunal has not made any

observation that the proceedings shall not be resumed. In

other words, liberty always lies with the employer to hold

WP No. 101452 of 2022

appropriate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with

law against the delinquent employee.

In the above circumstances and with the above

observation, writ petition is disposed of.

All pending applications pale into insignificance in

view of disposal of the main matter itself.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

YAN