Karnataka High Court
Anjalidevi D/O Hussenappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 November, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
WP No. 202305 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO.202305 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANJALIDEVI
D/O HUSSENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX,
KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND
LITIGATION, 6TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX,
Digitally signed KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. PRASHANT.B.WAJANTRI AND
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
(POLICE SERVICE-B),
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
WP No. 202305 of 2022
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND
LITIGATION, 6TH FLOOR,
KHB COMPLEX, KG ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. SMT. ANJANA CHAVAN
W/O YESHWANTH PAWAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI,
R/AT NO.111, NRUPATHUNGA COLONY,
OPP. SCHOOL, SHAHABAD ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AAG &
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR AND
SRI RAVI K. ANOOR, ADVOCATES FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.08.2022 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION NO.20294/2022 VIDE
ANNEXURE - F AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
R.DEVDAS J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
WP No. 202305 of 2022
ORDER
The contesting parties before this Court are working
as Public Prosecutors. In the matter of publication of the
seniority list on 19.11.2019, the third respondent herein
had approached the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for
short), Kalaburagi Bench in Application No.20023/2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the application by order dated
26.05.2021. The third respondent approached this Court in
W.P.No.201371/2021. When this Court noticed that the
third respondent had not challenged the order of censure
passed by the Disciplinary Authority which would go to the
root of the matter, the learned Counsel for the respondent
No.3 herein pleaded that the third respondent should be
permitted to raise a challenge to the order of censure
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter, urge
the contentions regarding the seniority list. Accordingly,
this Court accepted the submissions of the learned
Counsel for the respondent No.3 and dismissed the writ
petition as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the writ
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
petitioner therein to approach the Tribunal with a
comprehensive prayer not only to challenge the seniority
list dated 19.11.2019 but also to question the order of
censure dated 05.09.2014.
2. The Tribunal thereafter heard the petitioner
herein and the third respondent in Application
No.20294/2022 having regard to the directions issued by
this Court. The petitioner herein had in fact vociferously
contended that the application filed by the third
respondent herein is barred by res-judicata in respect of
the challenge to the seniority list and by limitation in
respect of the censure order. The Tribunal rightly rejected
the contentions of the petitioner herein and proceeded to
consider the challenge raised by the third respondent in
respect of the order of censure passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. The Tribunal found that before passing the
order of censure no second show cause notice was issued
and the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that the first
charge is proved, was based on no evidence. Accordingly,
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
the order of penalty/censure dated 05.09.2014 passed
against the third respondent herein was quashed and set
aside by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered
the fact that the DPC had proceeded with a sealed cover
procedure insofar as the third respondent is concerned,
having regard to the fact that at the time of consideration
of DPC, the departmental proceedings were pending
against the third respondent herein. Now that the Tribunal
came to a conclusion that the order of penalty/censure
passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the third
respondent was not sustainable and having set aside the
punishment imposed against the third respondent, the
Tribunal held that the sealed cover procedure having been
adopted and the third respondent having succeeded in the
disciplinary proceedings, she is entitled for promotion in
accordance with the seniority list as was available before
the DPC at the time of consideration of the promotion.
3. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal
proceeded to allow the application of the third respondent
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
while holding that the third respondent is entitled to
retrospective promotion as if promoted on the basis of
04.11.2011 select list, when her immediate junior, the
petitioner herein was promoted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal should have
dismissed the application filed by the third respondent
herein on the ground of delay and laches, since by a
subsequent application filed in the year 2022, the third
respondent was seeking to raise a challenge to the
seniority list dated 19.11.2019. The learned Counsel would
also contend that the third respondent did not challenge
the orders passed by the appellate authority although the
third respondent had approached the appellate authority
challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary
Authority.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, both
these contentions are not tenable. This Court, in the
presence of the petitioner herein had passed the orders in
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
W.P.No.201371/2021 permitting the third respondent
herein to approach the Tribunal once again with a
comprehensive prayer not only to challenge the seniority
list dated 19.11.2019, but also to question the order of
censure dated 05.09.2014. This Court is of the considered
opinion that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings
against the third respondent herein and the challenge
raised by the third respondent to the order of censure
dated 05.09.2014, the petitioner cannot have any say. In
that regard, we would not hesitate to hold that the writ
petitioner has no locus to say anything in the matter of
disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed by the
Disciplinary Authority against the third respondent herein.
In the same vein, it should also be said that when this
Court itself granted liberty to the third respondent to re-
approach the Tribunal and raise a comprehensive
challenge to the order of censure and the seniority list
dated 19.11.2019 and having regard to the fact that third
respondent had earlier challenged the seniority list in
Application No.20023/2020, the question of third
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
respondent approaching the Tribunal belatedly would not
arise. The third respondent had rightly challenged the
seniority list way back in the year 2020 itself. Therefore,
having secured liberty at the hands of this Court to
re-approach the Tribunal and raise a comprehensive
challenge, when the third respondent approached the
Tribunal, such action cannot be held to be belated.
6. Similarly in the matter of disciplinary
proceedings between the third respondent and the
Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner cannot be permitted
to say that the third respondent did not challenge the
order of the Appellate Authority. Such an objection could
have been raised by the Disciplinary Authority and not by
the petitioner herein.
7. In the meanwhile, one Shivaprasad Alva S/o
Late Krishna Alva filed an interlocutory application in
I.A.No.3/2022 seeking to come on record as party
respondent to the proceedings on the ground that the said
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
applicant has challenged the seniority list dated
19.11.2019 before the Principal Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.50418/2019 which came to be disposed of on
21.09.2021 with an observation that the applicant had to
approach the Tribunal. Accordingly, the applicant
approached the Tribunal at Bengaluru in Application
No.3786/2022 challenging the seniority list dated
19.11.2019. The said application is still pending
consideration before the Tribunal at Bengaluru. It is the
contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that
the orders passed by the Tribunal at Kalaburagi placing
the third respondent herein above the writ petitioner
would also affect the rights of the applicant.
8. Insofar as applicant in I.A.No.3/2022 is
concerned, since the Tribunal has only considered the
seniority list interse between the petitioner herein and the
third respondent and no observations are made by the
Tribunal insofar as the applicant in I.A.No.3/2022 is
concerned and in view of the fact that the application filed
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
by the applicant in Application No.3786/2022 is still
pending consideration before the Tribunal at Bengaluru, all
contentions shall be kept open insofar as the applicant is
concerned.
9. The petitioner and the third respondent herein
are also parties to the said proceedings before the Tribunal
at Bengaluru. Therefore, insofar as placement in the
Seniority list which was effected consequent to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
B.K.Pavitra-I vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 4
SCC 620 is concerned, all contentions are left open. All
the parties herein are entitled to raise their contentions in
the matter of seniority list insofar as the change brought
about consequent to the judgment in the case of
B.K.Pavitra-I and B.K.Pavitra-II Vs Union of India,
reported in (2019) 16 SCC 229, passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
10. For the reasons stated above, we are of the
considered opinion that no fault or infirmity can be found
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8927-DB
in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.3/2023
accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
