Karnataka High Court
Smt R Hamsaveni vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2024
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
W.P. No. 15438/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15438 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. R. HAMSAVENI
W/O BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETIRED SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
(UNDER ORDERS OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT)
SUB-TREASURY, PANDAVAPURA
MANDYA DISTRICT
R/AT VISHVESHWARANAGAR
HARALA HALLI, PANDUPURA
MANDYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURIES
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
W.P. No. 15438/2021
2
V.V. TOWER
BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 19.04.2021 IN APPLICATION NO. 7168/2017 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 20.11.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This writ petition is presented with following prayers:
(i) Set aside the order dated 19.04.2021 passed in
Application No.7168/2017 passed by the Hon'ble
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru,
vide Annexure-D.
(ii) Pass any order of consequential relief or any other
appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in
the ends of justice and equity.
2. We have heard Shri. M.P.Srikanth, learned
Advocate for the petitioner, Shri. Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA
the State.
3. Brief facts of the case are, one Smt. Hamsaveni
was working as Second Division Assistant, District Treasury in
Mandya. A charge memo was issued to her alleging that a
sum of Rs.2,04,400/- that had to be deposited to the
beneficiaries under the Widow pension and Sandya Suraksha
Scheme had been deposited to unauthorised accounts and
causing loss to the Government. Criminal proceedings were
conducted against the applicant in C.C.No. 339/2010 and the
learned Special Judge, Pandavapura vide order dated
23.08.2019 acquitted the applicant.
4. A Departmental Enquiry1 was conducted. The
Enquiry Officer vide report dated 05.11.2016, held the
applicant guilty of charges. Based on the enquiry report, the
Disciplinary Authority vide G.O.25.03.2017 imposed a penalty
of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved, the applicant
approached the KSAT2 and her application has been rejected.
Hence, this writ petition.
'DE' for short
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
5. Shri. Srikanth, for the petitioner, praying to allow
this writ petition, contented that:
• applicant has been honourably acquitted in the
criminal case and the KSAT has failed to examine
this aspect;
• applicant was not assigned the work of issuance
of cheques of widow pension and Sandya
Suraksha monthly pension;
6. Opposing the writ petition, Shri.Rojipura, for the
State, contented that this is not a case of honourable
acquittal; the evidences recorded in criminal case and the DE
are different; The KSAT has rightly dismissed petitioner's
application.
7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and
perused the records.
8. Based on the submissions on both the sides, the
questions that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether petitioner was honourably acquitted in
the criminal case?
(ii) Whether the impugned order calls for any
interference?
Re. point No.(i):
9. Undisputed facts of the case are, a charge memo
was issued against the applicant alleging that a sum of
Rs.2,04,400/- has been deposited to unauthorised accounts
and has caused loss to the government. The learned Special
Judge has acquitted the applicant. In the DE, the charges
were held proved and penalty has been imposed.
10. The charges framed and the witnesses examined in
the criminal case and the DE read as follows:
Charges in Departmental Charges in Criminal Case
Enquiry
¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ, ¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ
«zsÀªÁ ªÉÃvÀ£À ªÀiÁ¸Á±À£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¸ÀzÀj vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ G¥ÀReÁ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ
SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ, ²æêÀÄw DgÉÆævÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAzÁå ¸ÀÄgÀPÁë ºÁUÀÆ «zsÁªÀ
ºÀA¸ÀªÉÃtÂ, ¢é.zÀ.¸À DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ReÁ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÇtð dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ
zsÀ£ÁzÉñÀPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, zsÀ£ÁzÉñÀ ºÁUÀÆ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀÀÄ, C¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ¼À ¨ÁåAPï ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, zÀÄ«ð¤AiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁr, £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀªÉ¸ÀV,
¨ÁåAPïUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß UÀtPÀ AiÀÄAvÀæzÀ°è ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ, D ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ
ªÀÄÄ¢ævÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄöß zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.403,406,420 gÀrAiÀÄ°è
vÉUÉzÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯ÁV UÀtPÀ AiÀÄAvÀæzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀ¼ÀÄ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß
vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ £ÀPÀ®Ä ¨ÁåAPÀUÀ¼À J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ, (¨ÁåAPï ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ¼À) £ÀPÀ° ¤¸ÀìA±ÀAiÀĪÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉ?
¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖUÉ ¤ÃªÉ ¥sÉÇÃdðj ¸À» ªÀiÁr,
¨ÁåAPïUÉ gÀªÁ¤¹gÀÄwÛÃj. »ÃUÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ
70-80 ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ½UÉ vÀ®Ä¥À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ
ªÀiÁ¸Á±À£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉ®ªÉà C£Àå ªÉÊQÛUÀ¼À ¨ÁåAPï
SÁvÉUÉ dªÉÄ DUÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj.
EzÀjAzÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤ÃwUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÁjUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ°è
«¥sÀ®gÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.
F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ,
DgÀPÀëPÀgÀ oÁuÉ, ¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ, E°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀt
zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 06-04-2010gÀ°è
¥ÀvÁæAQvÀ G¥À ReÁ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, G¥À ReÁ£É,
¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ, EªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F
§UÉÎ ¨ÁåAQ£À°è SÁvÉ vÉgÉ¢zÀÝ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¥ÉǰøïgÀªÀgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, ¸ÀzÀj
ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ºÉýPÉ
¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀt £ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ²æêÀÄw
ºÀA¸ÀªÉÃt ªÀÄÄRå PÁgÀtgÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁåAQUÉ
PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ ºÀtzÀ°è ¸Àé®à ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ²æêÀÄw
ºÀA¸ÀªÉÃtÂ, EªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤Ãr, ºÉaÑ£À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß
CªÀgÉà ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV, CªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ
ºÉýPɬÄAzÀ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
Witnesses in Departmental Witnesses in Criminal Case
Enquiry
¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 1: PÀȵÀÚªÀÄÆwð .PÉ
1. ²æà ¹.¦.PÀÄlÖ¥Àà, G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, f¯Áè
ReÁ£É, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ. ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 2: PÉA¥ÀªÀÄä
2. ²æà ªÀįÉèñÀÀ¥Àà, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ReÁ£É ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 3: GªÀiÁ£ÁxÀ±ÉnÖ .©
¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 4: ²ªÀ°AUÀªÀÄä
3. ²æêÀÄw ¸ÀÄPÀ£Áå, f¯Áè ReÁ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 5: aPÀ̪ÉAPÀlAiÀÄåöÌ
f¯Áè ReÁ£É, ªÀÄAqÀå. ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 6: ¥Àæ¸À£Àß ªÀÄÆwð
4. ²æà ¨ÉÆÃgÀAiÀÄå, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ReÁ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 7: §¸ÀªÀgÁdÄ .¹.PÉ
f¯Áöè ReÁ£É, ªÀÄAqÀå.
5. ²æà aPÀÌZËqÀAiÀÄå, ªÀÄÄRå ¯ÉQÌUÀgÀÄ, G¥À ReÁ£É, ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 8: dAiÀIJæà ©. ±ÉnÖ
¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ. ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 9: ºÉZï. J£ï. «dAiÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgÀ
6. ²æà gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 10: ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ .JA
G¥À ReÁ£É, ¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ. ¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 11: AiÀıÀªÀAvï ªÀÄ®å
7. ²æà ¦.J¸ï. gÀªÉÄñï, ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð
¦.qÀ§Æèöå - 12: ºÉÀZï.PÉ. ¤¯ÉÃUËqÀ
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, G¥À ReÁ£É, ¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ.
8. ²æà gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï .PÉ.n., ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, f¯Áöè ReÁ£É, ªÀÄAqÀå.
9. ²æà f.JA. ±ÀAPÀgï, ªÀÄÄRå ¯ÉQÌUÀgÀÄ, G¥À
ReÁ£É, ¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ.
10. ²æêÀÄw dAiÀIJæà ©. ±ÉnÖ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ
ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, «dAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï, §£ÁßAUÀr.
11. ²æà gÀªÉÄñï .JA, ªÀÄÄRå ¯ÉQÌUÀgÀÄ, ReÁ£É
¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
12. ²æà ²æÃPÀAoÀAiÀÄå, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ,
f¯Áöè ReÁ£É, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ.
13. ²æà ¹.PÉ. §¸ÀªÀgÁd ©£À PÀÄZÉîAiÀÄå,
ªÁ¸À: aPÀÌAiÀiÁgÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ, £Ávïð ¨ÁåAPï,
a£ÀPÀÄgÀ½ ºÉÇç½, ¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ.
14. ²æêÀÄw PÉA¥ÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃmï gÁd¥Àà,
ªÁ¸À: aPÀÌAiÀiÁgÀ½öî UÁæªÀÄ, £Ávïð ¨ÁåAPï,
a£ÀPÀÄgÀ½ ºÉÇç½, ¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ.
15. ²æà ±ÀA¨sÀÄ°AUÀAiÀÄå ©£ï PÀļÀî¥Àöà,
ªÁ¸À: aPÀÌAiÀiÁgÀ½öî UÁæªÀÄ, £Ávïð ¨ÁåAPï,
a£ÀPÀÄgÀ½ ºÉÇç½, ¥ÁAqÀªÀ¥ÀÅgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ.
11. In the instant case, applicant was subjected to
both criminal case and DE. Both of them were on the same
set of facts. A careful reading of the charges framed before
the Trial Court and the DE extracted hereinabove, shows that
they are not one and the same. Thus the sequitur of decisions
namely, Paul Anthony3, G M Tank4 and S. Bhaskar Reddy5 do
not apply because the charges are different. In the criminal
case, the learned Trial Judge has held in para 13 of its
judgment that since the prosecution failed to produce
appropriate evidence the benefit of doubt was in favour of
accused. The relevant para reads thus:
"13. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¹, ¥ÀgÁªÀIJð¹, ¸ÀÆPÀÛ jÃwAiÀÄ°è «±Éèö¹zÀ §½PÀ, DgÉÆævÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ¸ÁQë ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀªÁUÀ°Ã,
C¢ü«ZÁgÀuÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛ jÃwAiÀÄ°è AiÀÄÄPÀÛªÁV ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¹®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
ºÁUÀÆ C¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV, £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ §UÉzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁfPÀ ¦AZÀt ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
DgÉÆævÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ «¥sÀ®gÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ,
C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAr¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÁQë ºÉýPÉ ºÁUÀÆ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀ
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ «¢üvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÁgÀt DgÉÆævÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ
D¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR C©üAiÉÆÃd£À ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¤¸ÀìA±ÀAiÀĪÁV
(1999) 3 SCC 679
(2006) 5 SCC 446
2015 AIR SCW 571
gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ «¥sÀ®gÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj
¸ÀA±ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ CA±À 1£ÀÄß £ÀPÁgÁvÀäPÀªÁV
GvÀÛj¸À¯ÁVzÉ
12. Following the above authorities, we hold that
petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case is not an Honourable
acquittal. Accordingly, point No. (i) is answered in the
negative.
Re.point( ii)
13. Shri. Srikanth contended that the applicant was not
assigned the work related to the Widow Pension and she was
only in the tappal Section. This contention is untenable
because, the applicant in her reply to the charge memo has
stated that she was in charge of maintaining the registers
about the D.D' s received and forwarding them to the Head
Accountant. Therefore, the contention that that the applicant
is not at all related to the Widow Pension and Suraksha
Monthly Pension is untenable and have to be rejected.
14. Unlike criminal proceeding, in a department
enquiry the allegations need not be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. The disciplinary proceedings are based on
preponderance of probabilities. The three conditions that need
to be satisfied in a D.E are firstly whether the principals of
natural justice have been followed? secondly whether
reasonable opportunity has been given? and thirdly whether
the penalty imposed is proportionate?
15. In the instant case, the applicant has been served
with the show cause notice and has been given an opportunity
to reply as well as examine the witnesses. Thus, the principles
of natural justice have been complied and reasonable
opportunity has been given. She has been imposed the
penalty of compulsory retirement. The applicant was aged 59
years at the time of imposition of penalty. We do not find the
penalty imposed is disproportionate.
16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
ground to interfere with the KSAT's order and accordingly,
point No.(ii) is answered in the negative. Resultantly, this
writ petition is dismissed.
No Costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
