Karnataka High Court
Shivakumar S/O. Puttaiah Kamadod vs The Director on 14 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14697
WP No. 105640 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 105640 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAKUMAR S/O. PUTTAIAH KAMADOD,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SDC,
PURASABHE, SHIGGAON,
R/O. # AT GANGDHI GALLI,
BEHIND NAGRA SABHA, RANE BENNURU,
DIST: HAVERI, NOW RESIDING AT
EJARI LAKMAPURA, BEHIND AMBEDKAR
BHAVAN, MAHA SANIDI LAYOUT,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADV. FOR SRI CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
1. THE DIRECTOR
Digitally signed by
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Date: 2023.12.20
9TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER,
16:16:06 +0530
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1,
SRI. N. P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14697
WP No. 105640 of 2023
ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO. 1054988/DMA/ENQ2/
BGM1/4/2023/3617 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
19.08.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and also the
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner is questioning the show cause notice
issued in August, 2023, which is marked at Annexure-A. The
show cause notice issued to the petitioner would reveal that the
petitioner is convicted by the jurisdictional criminal Court and
explanation is sought as to why the penalty should not be
imposed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 197, 409 and 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
This fact of conviction is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he has filed the criminal appeal against
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14697
the said order of conviction and same is pending consideration.
It is further submitted that the operation of the order of
conviction is not stayed. Under these circumstances, the 1st
respondent has issued a show cause notice seeking explanation
from the petitioner as to why the petitioner should not be
dismissed from service. Seven days time was granted to furnish
the said explanation. This show cause notice is called in
question in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the show cause notice is issued without application of mind and
thus, he would contend that show cause notice on the basis of
recommendation made by the Lokayukta is bad in law. It is also
his contention that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to
recommend the penalty and the employer has to apply his
mind and pass appropriate orders. Thus, he would contend that
the show cause notice be quashed. He would also place reliance
on the Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow
Bench) in the case of Vishwanath Vishwakarma vs. State of
U.P. and Others, Neutral Citation No. 2023/AHC-LKO/59434
and also placing reliance on Article 311 of the Constitution of
India, he would contend that the authority has no jurisdiction to
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14697
pass an order of termination without affording an opportunity of
hearing and without applying its mind to the conduct of the
party which led to the conviction.
5. Learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 would contend
that the Annexure-A is only a show cause notice and a decision
is not yet taken pursuant to the show cause notice. The
petitioner has already replied to the said show cause notice. In
view of the interim order, the authority has not yet taken any
decision.
6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the
bar and also referred to Rule 14 of the Karnataka Civil Services
Rules, 1957 as well as Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
The Rule 14 referred to above enables the authority to impose
the penalty. Article 311 of the Constitution of India provides
for an opportunity of hearing to the party who is found guilty in
a criminal proceedings and against whom the penalty is sought
to be imposed. After going to the notice, it is apparent that the
show cause notice is issued to the petitioner inviting the
petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner claims that
he has submitted his explanation.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14697
7. Since, the decision is to be taken by the authority
keeping in mind the requirement of Rule 14 of the Karnataka
Civil Services Rules, 1957 and Article 311 of the Constitution of
India, this Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain the
writ petition, at this juncture.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it
is made clear that the authority shall consider the explanation
submitted by the petitioner and apply its mind to relevant facts
and circumstances and thereafter, pass an appropriate order
pursuant to the show cause notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK/ct-an
