Kum. Saroja G.T vs The State Of Karnataka And Os
2023 Latest Caselaw 1100 Kant

                                 1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                            PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                               AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

          WRIT PETITION No.202444/2021
                       C/w
          WRIT PETITION No.202519/2021
                      AND
       WRIT PETITION No.200073/2022(S-KAT)

IN WRIT PETITION No.202444/2021

Between:

Kum. Saroja G.T., d/o Late Gundappa
Aged about: 30 years,
Occ: District Tribal Officer
Social Welfare Department, Bidar
R/o: Guru Nanak Colony, Bidar- 585 402
                                          ...Petitioner
(By Sri Deshpande Amit Anand, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Department of Social Welfare
       M.S.Building, Bangalore-01
       Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

2.     The Commissioner,
       Department of Social Welfare
       M.S.Building Park, 5th
                                  2


       Dr. Ambedkar Road
       Bangalore-01.

3.     The Upalokayuktha,
       Rep. by its Registrar
       M.S. Building, Bangalore-01.
                                            ...Respondents
(By Sri Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, GA for R1 and R2;
Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R3)

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to allow this writ petition and
issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order
or direction to set aside the order passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal in A.No.20127/2020 dated:
22.10.2021 and consequently allow the A.No.20127/2020 vide
Annexure-A, as prayed for.

IN WRIT PETITION No.202519/2021

Between:

Kum. Saroja G.T., d/o Late Gundappa
Aged about: 30 years,
Occ: District Tribal Officer
Social Welfare Department, Bidar
R/o: Guru Nanak Colony, Bidar- 585 402
                                                      ...Petitioner
(By Sri Deshpande Amit Anand, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Department of Social Welfare
       M.S.Building, Bangalore-01
       Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

2.     The Commissioner,
       Department of Social Welfare
       M.S.Building Park, 5th
       Dr. Ambedkar Road
       Bangalore-01.
                                  3


3.     The Upalokayuktha,
       Rep. by its Registrar
       M.S.building, Bangalore-01.
                                             ...Respondents
(By Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, GA for R1 and R2;
Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R3)

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to allow this writ petition and
issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order
or direction to set aside the order passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal in A.No.20150/2020 dated:
22.10.2021 vide Annexure-'A' and consequently allow the
A.No.20127/2020, as prayed for.

IN WRIT PETITION No.200073/2022

Between:

Kum. Saroja G.T., d/o Late Gundappa
Aged about: 30 years,
Occ: District Tribal Officer
Social Welfare Department, Bidar
R/o: Guru Nanak Colony, Bidar- 585 402
                                                      ...Petitioner
(By Sri Deshpande Amit Anand, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Department of Social Welfare
       M.S. Building, Bangalore-01
       Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

2.     The Commissioner,
       Department of Social Welfare
       M.S.Building Park, 5th
       Dr. Ambedkar Road
       Bangalore-01.
                                 4


3.    The Upalokayuktha,
      Rep. by its Registrar
      M.S.Building, Bangalore-01.
                                             ...Respondents
(By Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, GA for R1 and R2;
Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R3)

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to allow this writ petition and
issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order
or direction to set aside the order passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi, in A.No.20571/2021
dated:22.10.2021 and consequently allow the A.No.20571/2021
as prayed for.

      These petitions having been heard and reserved on
9.1.2023, coming on for pronouncement of order, this day,
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., made the following:

                          ORDER

These writ petitions are disposed of by a

common order. The petitioner is same in all the writ

petitions. She has challenged the common order

dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) on

application nos. 20571/2021, 20127/2020 and

20150/2020. The material facts are that:

2. While the petitioner was working as Deputy

Director, Grade - I (on own pay grade), Social Welfare

Department, Raichur, the Upalokayukta, i.e., 3rd

respondent, visited the hostels at Raichur on

31.1.2018. Noticing irregularities in the maintenance

of registers and records of the hostels under the

jurisdiction of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent

issued a notice to her on 14.2.2018 seeking her

explanation. She submitted a detailed reply on

15.3.2018 stating that she had instructed all the

Taluka Social Welfare Officers to hold regular monthly

meetings and supervise the proper maintenance of the

hostels. She also stated that five talukas did not have

regular Taluka Social Welfare Officers and the Office

Superintendents had been kept in charge of Taluka

Social Welfare Officers in order to look after the

hostels. She further stated that because of frequent

changes in the postings, it was difficult to supervise

the hostel in effective manner and that there was no

mismanagement of misappropriation of whatsoever

nature. She produced the copies of the proceedings

of the meetings held on various dates and requested

for not initiating any action against her.

3. In W.P.No.200073/2022, it is pleaded that

after the petitioner submitted her reply on

15.03.2018, the 3rd respondent made a report to the

1st respondent under section 12(3) of the Act on

27.11.2020 seeking entrustment of enquiry to it under

Rule 14-A of the Rules. Likewise in

W.P.Nos.202519/2021 and 202444/21, it is stated

that reports under section 12(3) of the Act were made

on 24.06.2019 and 08.01.2020 respectively. After

reports under section 12(3) in all the cases were

received, the 1st respondent proceeded to take action

under section 12(4) of the Act on 22.6.2021,

29.7.2019 and 13.2.2020 as stated in

W.P.No.200073/2022, W.P.No.202519/2021 and

202444/2021 respectively. The petitioner challenged

the reports under section 12(3) of the Karnataka

Lokayukta Act and the orders of entrustment of

enquiry under section 14-A of Rules by filing the

applications mentioned above before the Tribunal.

Since the Tribunal dismissed her applications, the

petitioner has preferred these writ petitions.

4. We have heard the argument of Sri. Amit

Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.

Subash Mallapur, learned counsel for the 3rd

respondent and also the Government Advocate for the

1st and 2nd respondents.

5. It was the argument of Sri. Amit Deshpande

that the enquiry against the petitioner did not

commence within three months after she submitted

the explanation on 15.3.2018. The report under

section 12(3) of the Act was submitted to the

Government very belatedly. Even the entrustment of

enquiry as per section 12(4) of the Act was also a

belated action. His argument was that in terms of

section 12(4) of the Act, the disciplinary proceedings

ought to have been initiated within three months after

the petitioner gave her explanation. In this view the

enquiries against the petitioner are not sustainable.

Therefore the writ petitions are to be allowed and the

impugned orders of the Tribunal are to be set aside

and the reliefs sought by the petitioner before the

Tribunal should be granted. In support of his

argument he placed reliance on the judgment of the

co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Sanjeev

Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka and another

(W.P.No.205398/2019).

6. Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for

respondent no.3 argued that the delay in making a

report under section 12(3) of the Act was on account

of interim order obtained by the petitioner and there is

reference to this in the impugned order. He therefore

argued that there cannot be interference with the

order passed by the Tribunal.

7. The Tribunal has recorded reasons that if the

report under section 12(3) of the Act is read, it does

make out a prima facie case of misconduct by the

petitioner. In regard to delay in initiation of

disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal has referred to a

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of LIC

and others Vs. A.Masilamani - [(2013)6 SCC

530] to hold that mere delay does not lead to

quashing of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also

observed that it is not the case of the petitioner that

she has been prejudiced in any manner by delay and

she herself obtained an interim order of stay and

therefore the disciplinary proceedings did not proceed.

8. Now if we examine the findings of the Tribunal

with reference to the materials placed by the

petitioner, we may state that there is a reason for not

initiating disciplinary proceedings immediately after

the petitioner submitted her explanation on

15.3.2018. If in respect of two cases, as has been

observed by the Tribunal there was an interim order,

certainly no proceedings could have been initiated

against her.

9. In regard to the argument of Sri. Amit

Deshpande that the disciplinary proceedings should

have commenced within three months after the

petitioner gave her explanations, we may state that

section 12(4) of the Act does not state that

disciplinary action must be taken up within three

months after the delinquent servant submits

explanation. The purport of section 12(4) of the Act

is that the competent authority must apply its mind to

section 12(3) of the Act and decide as to how to

proceed further. The competent authority may decide

not to initiate any action if according to it the section

12(3) of the Act does not make out a case for taking

disciplinary action or if there are materials to proceed

further, disciplinary action may be initiated. This kind

of a decision must be reported to the Lokayukta or

Uplokayukta within three months after receipt of the

report under section 12(3). Section 12(4) does not

specify a time limit of three months for initiating

disciplinary action. Though it is true that the

disciplinary action must commence at the earliest,

delay itself cannot be a ground for interfering with

disciplinary action.

10. In the case on hand, though we find that no

action was taken immediately after the petitioner

submitted her explanations, there is a reason for it

and it was due to interim order being in force as has

been observed already. Pertaining to

W.P.202444/2021, the report under section 12(3) of

the Act was submitted on 8.1.2021 and action under

section 12(4) of the Act was initiated on 13.2.2020 by

entrusting the enquiry according to section 14A of the

Rules. In W.P.200073/2022 report under section

12(3) of the Act was submitted on 27.11.2020 and

enquiry was ordered on 22.6.2021. In

W.P.202519/2021, it is stated that report under

section 12(3) of the Act was made on 24.6.2019 and

enquiry under section 14A of the Rules was entrusted

on 29.7.2019. If at all there was delay, it was in

relation to Application No.20571/2021 before the

Tribunal whose order has given rise to

W.P.No.200073/2022. But the said delay is not

inordinate and as we have observed already, three

months time is not applicable for initiation of enquiry.

11. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of

Sanjeev Kumar has actually held that the competent

authority must apply its mind while exercising power

under section 12(4) of the Act. It was not the

argument of Sri. Amit Deshpande that there was no

application of mind by the competent authority.

12. Therefore from the above discussion, we

hold that the petitioner has failed to make out good

grounds to interfere with the impugned orders.

Consequently writ petitions are dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd