The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... vs Sri Ismal Saheb Shirahatti S/O ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6058 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                             NC: 2023:KHC-D:9772-DB
                                                           WP No. 102148 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                               DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
                                                PRESENT
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
                                                  AND
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 102148 OF 2023 (S-KAT)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPL. BY
                           ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                           DPAR, (SERVICES-2), VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                           BENGALURU-560001.

                      2.   THE COMMISSIONER, REHABILATION
                           AND RE-DEVELOPMENT, KBJNL,
                           ALAMATTI-586201, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
                                                                     ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
                      AND:
                      SRI. ISMAL SAHEB SHIRAHATTI
                      S/O. RAJESAHAB, AGE: 50 YEARS,
                      OCC: FORMER ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                      KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL,
                      PRESENTLY WORKING AS REHABILITION OFFICER,
MOHANKUMAR            KBJNL, ALMATTI-586201,
B SHELAR              DISTRICT: BAGALKOT,
Digitally signed by
                      R/O. R.N.SHETTY ROAD, SAVANUR LAYOUT,
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
                      PLOT NO.74, HUBBALLI-580025,
Date: 2023.09.17
11:52:33 +0530
                      DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
                                                                     ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SMT. KAVITA G.BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE)
                           THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                      OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, (A) ISSUE A WRIT IN
                      THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
                      PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
                      TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10713/2020 BY ORDER
                      DATED 17.02.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
                           THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
                      HEARING, THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., PASSED THE
                      FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC-D:9772-DB
                                         WP No. 102148 of 2023




                             ORDER

This petition by the State is directed against the

impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed in Application

No.10713/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative

Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal'), whereby the said

application filed by the respondent was allowed by the

Tribunal.

2. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the

petitioners/State and learned counsel for the respondent and

perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the

respondent belong to the cadre of KAS(Junior Scale) and was

working as Assistant Commissioner at Koppal from 4.9.2015

to 6.12.2016 during which period, he had dealt with many

cases arising out of the alleged violation of Section 79-A and

B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In one such

case, the respondent passed an award dated 5.3.2016

holding that there was no violation of the said provisions by

the party based on the material produced by him and that if

the same were to be found false, subsequently, the entire

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9772-DB WP No. 102148 of 2023

property would stand forfeited to the State Government

under KLR Rules.

4. Subsequently, after the respondent was

transferred and working as Rehabilitation Officer at

K.B.J.N.L., Alamatti, Bagalkot District, he received a notice

dated 16.07.2019 from the petitioner invoking Rule 12 of

KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 alleging that the respondent had

committed misconduct as per KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

The respondent submitted a reply along with statement of

defence on 23.08.2019 denying and disputing all the

allegations made against him and requested the petitioner to

exonerate him from the charges. However, the petitioner did

not consider the said reply and documents and without

holding any enquiry or recording findings on the charges

leveled against the respondent, the petitioner passed an

order dated 2.7.2020 by imposing a penalty on the

respondent withholding 5 annual increments of pay (without

cumulative effect) by invoking Rule 8(iii) of the KCS(CCA)

Rules, 1957.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9772-DB WP No. 102148 of 2023

5. Aggrieved by the said penalty order passed by

the petitioner, the respondent filed instant application and

the same was allowed by the Tribunal by passing impugned

order, which is assailed in the present petition.

6. A perusal of the material on record including the

impugned order will indicate that the Tribunal has come to

the correct conclusion that the penalty order albeit a minor

penalty cannot be imposed without holding enquiry, when

the respondent categorically denied the charges leveled

against him and the same would be violative of principles of

natural justice. The Tribunal also referred to judgments of

the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court to hold that

disciplinary action cannot be taken against a government

servant in relation to an act, deed or thing done by him in

exercise of judicial or quasi judicial powers except in

accordance with law; it was held that in the instant case, the

facts and circumstances did not warrant disciplinary action

especially since the quasi judicial order passed by the

respondent was based on the material available before him

in the proceedings under Section 79-A and B of KLR Act and

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9772-DB WP No. 102148 of 2023

no misconduct can be imputed/attributed to the respondent

for having passed the said order dated 5.3.2016. The

Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the penalty order

having been passed without providing any opportunity to the

respondent nor conducting any enquiry despite the

respondent having issued a detailed reply and statement of

defence to the notice dated 16.07.2019 issued to him by the

petitioner, the impugned penalty order was violative of

principles of natural justice and that the same deserves to be

set-aside in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court and this Court referred to in the body of the impugned

order. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the

aforesaid order dated 5.3.2016 passed by respondent, if

found to be erroneous, can be challenged by the

petitioner/State by way of an appeal/revision; however,

mere passing of wrong order by the respondent could not

have been made the basis to come to the conclusion that he

was guilty of misconduct attracting the penalty imposed

upon him. Under these circumstances, after correctly

considering and appreciating the entire material on record

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9772-DB WP No. 102148 of 2023

and the principles of law involved in the instant case, the

Tribunal proceeded to allow the application filed by the

respondent and set-aside the penalty order.

7. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re-

consideration of the entire material on record, we are of the

considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the

Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or

infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or

perverse warranting interference by this Court in the present

petition. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition

and same is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR