Karnataka High Court
Sri Raja vs The Secretary on 29 November, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43212-DB
WA No. 471 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJA,
S/O SANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT ANNENAHALLI, URUVEKERE POST,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 202.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
Digitally signed
by SHARADA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VANI B VIKASA SOUDHA
Location: HIGH AMEDKAR VEEDHI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BEGNALURU 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 102.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43212-DB
WA No. 471 of 2022
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
TUMKUR 572 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA., AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.27754/2018 DATED
11/01/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED BY
THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
This intra-court appeal calls in question a learned
Single Judge's order dated 11.1.2021 whereby, appellant's
W.P.No.27754/2018 (S-RES) has been negatived. In the
said petition, the appellant had prayed for a Writ of
Mandamus to enlist his name as the Pourakaarmikaas and
grant all service benefits such as regularization, pay
fitment & arrears.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently argues that the name of his client figured in
the List of Pourakaarmikaas and a copy of that was issued
NC: 2023:KHC:43212-DB
by the custodian of the records, on an RTI application
being made. That being the position, there was absolutely
no scope for the learned Single Judge to doubt the
authenticity of the List and therefore, deny relief to the
appellant. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents
resists the appeal pointing out that the learned Single
Judge having perused the original records, has entered a
finding as to fraud, fabrication & duplicity; if there is
difference between what emerges from the original file and
what comes out from the copies of the documents
furnished, the former has to be acted upon in preference
to the latter. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the
Writ Appeal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and having perused the Appeal Papers, we are
in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge at paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, has
rightly observed as under:
NC: 2023:KHC:43212-DB
"Since there is a dispute with regard to the
document at Annexure A, this Court summoned
the original register maintained at the office of
the fourth respondent to verify as to whose name
appears at Sl.No.18 and the same was produced
by the fourth respondent for the Court's perusal.
On an examination of the register it clearly
showed the name of one Anjanappa at Sl.No.18
for having been appointed on 08.04.1992 and
dead on the date of issuance of the official
memorandum dated 05.03.1996. The original of
the official memorandum was also perused and
the same fact was noticed. Thus, the petitioner
has produced a document which is fabricated and
has impersonated a dead employee by name
Anjanappa whose name is found at SI.No.18 in
the original records and not the name of the
petitioner."
4. We also do not find any error in the following
observation at para 10 of the impugned judgment
"The petitioner claims to have completed 36 years
of service as a Pourakarmika in the fourth
respondent and the age of the petitioner in the
affidavit while filing the writ petition is 52 years,
which would mean that the petitioner was
appointed as a Pourakarmika at the age of 16
years which is far from probability as none of the
persons who were regularized in the document
dated 05.03.1996 were below the age of 18 years
when they were appointed. Therefore, there can
be no shadow of a doubt that the petitioner has
played fraud on this Court by producing a
fabricated document, twining a story of his
appointment and seeking service benefits."
NC: 2023:KHC:43212-DB
We are of the considered opinion that the learned
Single Judge was lenient in not initiating any action in
criminal law against the appellant. However, that being
the matter of discretion, we do not propose to upset it in
the totality of circumstances of the case.
In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid
of merits, is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed, costs
having been very reluctantly made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb,
