Karnataka High Court
Rajshekhar vs The Deputy Commissioner And Anr on 2 April, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
WA No.200086 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.200086 OF 2023 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
RAJSHEKHAR
S/O MAHADEVAPPA DODDAMANI
AGE: 48 YEARS
OCC: EX-PROJECT MANAGER
(NOW TERMINATED FROM SERVICE)
NIRMITHI KENDRA, KALABURAGI
R/O H.NO.246, C.I.B COLONY
BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND
KALABURAGI
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 103.
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: High Court
Of Karnataka
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL
APPEARING A/W SRI SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND CHAIRMAN NIRMITHI KENDRA
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
WA No.200086 of 2023
ROOM NO.110, GATE II,
M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GOVT. ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.201504/2021 DATED 24.06.2022
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE TERMINATION ORDER
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE
ORDER BEARING NO.¸ÀASÉå.¤PÉÃPÀ/DqÀ½vÀ/2021/21, DATED
22.04.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-X TO THE WRIT PETITION
NO.201504/2021 AND FURTHER DIRECTIONS BE ISSUED TO
RESPONDENT NO.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO RE-INSTATE
THE APPELLANT IN TO SERVICE TO HIS ORIGINAL POST OF
PROJECT MANAGER OF NIRMITHI KENDRA, KALABURAGI.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
WA No.200086 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the
order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.201504/2021 whereby the learned Single
Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by confirming the order
of termination dated 22.04.2021.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking in the Writ Petition
No.201504/2021.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Engineer at
Nirmithi Kendra, Kalaburagi, on 04.11.2007. Later, he was
promoted as a Project Manager at Nirmithi Kendra on
27.06.2014. Thereafter, the respondents have appointed
one Sri.P.J.Ekantappa as the Project Manager and
demoted the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer on
the allegation that petitioner was not having required
qualification of degree in Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) as
he has completed his Diploma (Civil) course. There are
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
also other allegations against the petitioner that he was
involved in the case of misappropriation of funds of the
Nirmithi Kendra to the tune of Rs.88.64 Lakhs. Hence, a
Departmental Enquiry was initiated and on the basis of the
enquiry report, the petitioner was terminated from
services. The said order was questioned before this Court
in W.P.No.202392/2018 and this Court by order dated
29.01.2020 allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the
order of termination on the ground that the order of
termination was not preceded with any domestic enquiry
and also directed the authority to reinstate the petitioner
which would be subject to the outcome of enquiry, which
was already initiated by the respondents against the
petitioner. Thereafter, enquiry was completed and report
was filed by the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the
enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the
order on 22.04.2021 terminating the petitioner from the
services, which was impugned before the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.201504/2021. After hearing both the
parties, the learned Single Judge vide order dated
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
24.06.2022 dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the
order of termination dated 22.04.2021. Being aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this Writ
Appeal.
4. Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
respondent has not provided sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner to defend his case before the Enquiry Officer.
The allegations made against the petitioner in the charge
memo have not been proved. He further contended that
the Assistant Commissioner, who is subordinate to the
Deputy Commissioner/Disciplinary Authority was
appointed as an Enquiry Officer and therefore, he submits
that the petitioner cannot expect a fair enquiry. He has
protested the same by not appearing before the Enquiry
Officer on the ground that he will not get any justice.
Hence, he contended that the order of termination passed
by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer is unsustainable. Without
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, he sought
for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, Sri.Shivakumar Tengli, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Mallikarjun
C.Basareddy, learned Government Advocate for
respondent No.2 contended that inspite of issuing
repeated notice by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has
refused to participate in the enquiry proceedings and now,
he has no authority to contend that the Enquiry Officer has
not given him proper opportunity. He further contends
that the charges leveled against the petitioner are very
serious and since he has not participated in the enquiry
proceedings, the enquiry officer after perusing the relevant
materials available on record has submitted a report that
the charges against the petitioner have been proved. On
that basis, the disciplinary authority has rightly passed an
order of termination of petitioner. Hence, they sought for
dismissal of appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
6. This Court after hearing the parties on
26.03.2024 had suggested the counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 to conduct a de-novo enquiry against the
petitioner by appointing any retired District Judge as an
Enquiry Officer.
7. Today, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
submits that they will conduct a de-novo enquiry by
appointing any retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer
and thereafter, they will pass an order in accordance with
law.
8. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting
aside the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.201504/2021 and quash the order
dated 22.04.2021 at Annexure-X to the said petition.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that if this Court has come to the
conclusion to set-aside the order of termination, then it
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
has to be taken note that this Court in
W.P.No.202392/2018 vide order dated 29.01.2020 had
set-aside the earlier order of termination dated
21.08.2018 and directed the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner into service, subject to the outcome of the
enquiry and thereafter, enquiry has been conducted and
again the petitioner has been terminated from service by
an order of termination dated 22.04.2021 and the said
order of termination has been challenged by the petitioner
before this Court in W.P.No.201504/2021. However, this
Court vide order dated 05.05.2022 had directed the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service.
Hence, the learned counsel sought for reinstating the
petitioner into the service.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
learned Government Advocate for respondent No.2 have
opposed for reinstating the petitioner into service on the
ground that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
11. In view of the above, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
a) The writ appeal is allowed.
b) The order dated 24.06.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.201504/2021, is set aside. The order
dated 22.04.2021 passed by respondent
No.1-Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-X to
the said writ petition, is quashed.
c) The respondents are directed to conduct a
de-novo enquiry against the petitioner by
appointing any retired District Judge as an
Enquiry Officer. Till the final order is passed,
the respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner into the service. The reinstatement
of the petitioner into service, is subject to
the outcome of the enquiry.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2740-DB
d) It is made clear that the enquiry shall be
conducted without being influenced by any
observations made in the earlier enquiry or
observations made by this Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR,DM
