Karnataka High Court
Sri. C.R. Manjunath vs The Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 20 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2024(S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C.R. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE K RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER,
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
RAMANAGARA-562159
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRITHVEESH M K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
NO 49, PARISARA BHAVAN,
CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NO 49, PARISARA BHAVAN,
CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001
2
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY,
4TH FLOOR, GATE NO 2, M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 &
R2; SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 03/01/2024
BEARING NO. MaaNiMa 57 AaaDaA 2023/1743 PASSED BY
THE R2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENLTY DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the
impugned order of suspension dated 3.1.2024 passed
by respondent No.2.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
A company by name Enviro Recyclean Private
Limited filed an application requesting for issuance of
"Consent For Establishment"(CFE) to establish a plant
for the purpose of re-processing of all types of plastic
wastes at Ramanagara. The petitioner on physical
verification of the subject premises submitted a report
indicating that the uploaded pictures and photos are
not matching the machineries as submitted by the
industry.
3. The Chairman of the Central Pollution
Control Board(CPCB) sent a communication to
respondent No.2 on the basis of the audit report
indicating that audit reveals certain non-compliances
of extant Rules by the industry/occupier. A direction
was also issued to respondent No.2 to first conduct a
detailed enquiry into the issue of CFE and consent for
occupation (CFO) in favour of the company and then
to fix the liability on the erring officials and take
disciplinary action.
4. A show-cause notice was issued to the
present petitioner calling upon him to submit his
explanation regarding alleged dereliction of duty on
the part of the petitioner in submitting his field
verification report. This show cause notice is issued
on 15.11.2023.
5. Petitioner's grievance is that though he has
submitted a detailed reply on 24.11.2023 to the show
cause notice issued on 15.11.2023, the third
respondent directed first respondent to place the
Senior Environmental officer and the present
petitioner under suspension and to transfer other two
officials of the Board. Respondent No.2 without
obtaining prior approval of respondent No.3-
Government and without a decision being taken for
passing a resolution in the matter, passed the
impugned suspension order.
The said impugned suspension order is under
challenge.
6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition
would vehemently argue and contend that respondent
No.2 cannot keep the petitioner under suspension
without the prior approval of third respondent-State.
He would point out that the first respondent-Board is
the appointing authority and therefore, respondent
No.2 neither being an appointing authority nor an
empowering authority has jurisdiction to place the
petitioner under suspension. Placing reliance on the
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board For
Prevention And Control Of Water Pollution (Procedure
For Transaction of Business And The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution)(Amendment)
Rules, 1976 (for short "Rules, 1976") and the 2010
amendment brought to the said Rules (for short
"Amendment Rules, 2010"), he would vehemently
argue and contend that Rule 15 of Rules, 1976 clearly
contemplates that respondent No.2 cannot place the
petitioner under suspension without prior approval of
the Government. He would vehemently argue and
contend that CPCB vide communication dated
26.10.2023 has directed respondent No.2 to first
conduct a detailed enquiry into the issue of CFE and
CFO in favour of Enviro Recyclean Private Limited and
then fix liability on the erring officials and take
disciplinary action. He would vehemently argue and
contend that respondent No.2 in a whimsical manner
has invoked Rule 3 (i)(ii)(iii) of Karnataka Civil Service
(Conduct) Rules, 2020 (for short "KCSRs") without
there being an iota of evidence of misconduct by the
petitioner. In support of his arguments, he has placed
reliance on the following judgments:
"1. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs.
Shardul Singh - 1970 (1) SCC 108.
2. M/s Bengal Enamel Works Ltd Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal -
1970 (1) SCC 112.
3. General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and
Another Vs Dr.Subash Chandra Yadav &
Another - (1988) 2 SCC 351.
4. Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India and
Another - (2020) 13 SCC 56.
5. Inayathulla.S Vs. Deputy Conservator of
Forests and Another - 1982 SCC Online Kar
89.
6. S.Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka &
Others - 2021 SCC Online Kar 12627."
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for respondents would however contend
that based on report submitted by Chief
Environmental Officer-3 to respondent No.3, show-
cause notice was issued to the petitioner and on the
same day, copy was sent to the Government.
Referring to the resolution passed by respondent
No.1-Board, he would contend that it is the Board that
resolved to suspend the erring officials on 23.11.2023
and Government has approved and has directed the
Board to take actions against the concerned officers
on 24.11.2023. The first respondent Board holds a
Board Meeting on 20.12.2023 under Subject No.243
and passes a resolution for implementing the
Government Resolution dated 24.11.2023 and the
impugned suspension order is passed by respondent
No.2-Chairman on 3.1.2024.
8. In support of his contentions, he has placed
reliance on the following judgments:
"1. Maharashtra State Mining Corporation
Vs. Sunil - (2006) 5 SCC 96.
2. National Institute of Technology and Anr.
Vs. Pannalal Choudhary & Anr - (2015) 11
SCC 669."
9. On examining the materials on record, this
Court would find that the impugned suspension order
does not indicate that procedural fairness is followed
by the authority. The report submitted by the audit
team of CPCB indicates that directions were issued to
conduct a detailed enquiry into the issue of CFE and
CFO to ascertain how physical verification report was
approved by the respondent No.1-Board on EPR
portal and then fix liability on erring officials. The
suspension order is not preceded by a detailed enquiry
as directed by CPCB.
10. Now let me examine as to whether
principles of natural justice is followed in the present
case on hand. Show-cause notice dated 15.11.2023 is
issued to the petitioner by the Chairman of the Board
seeking explanation within three days. Member
Secretary of Respondent No.1-Board writes to the
Government that show-cause notice is issued to the
petitioner. Show-cause notice is served on the
petitioner on 17.11.2023. Petitioner seeks seven days
time to submit his reply on 18.11.2023. Respondent
No.2-Chairman approved the request and extended
the time till 25.11.2023. In the interregnum, it is
Member Secretary who decides to place the petitioner
under suspension and directs to place the proposal
before the Government on 23.11.2023. Though
petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on
24.11.2023, respondent No.3 strangely directs
respondent No.1-Board to place the petitioner and
another person under suspension, which is impugned
in the captioned petition. Suspension order is dated
3.1.2024.
11. In the realm of administrative law, principle
of natural justice holds paramount importance. In
response to the show-cause notice, petitioner has
offered explanation to each of the allegations which is
clearly evident from Annexure-K1. If the authority in
its wisdom has called upon petitioner to offer
explanation by issuing show-cause notice, then the
said employee deserves to be heard before suspension
takes place. An employee should have an opportunity
to present his evidence to support his position. The
above dates give a clear indication that respondents in
a hasty manner have proceeded to place petitioner
under suspension. If a show-cause notice was issued
and was served on the petitioner only on 17.11.2023
and the fact that the Chairman approved the request
and extended time till 25.11.2023, the Member
Secretary of respondent No.1-Board decides to place
the petitioner under suspension and a proposal was
placed before respondent No.3-State. Though
respondent No.2-Chairman has extended time till
25.11.2023 to enable the petitioner to offer his
explanation, respondent No.1-State on 24.11.2023
directs respondent No.1-Board to place the petitioner
under suspension. Therefore, it is clearly evident that
the petitioner's explanation vide Annexure-K1 is
neither adverted by respondent No.1-Board nor by
respondent No.3-State.
12. The suspension order also prima facie
reveals that Chairman has put his dissent note to the
243rd Board Meeting held on 20.12.2023. The reasons
for dissent is indicated by the Chairman. It would be
relevant to cull out the dissent note put up by the
Chairman:
243:10 ªÉÄÃ|| J¤égÉÆà j¸ÉÊQèÃ£ï ¥ÉæöÊ Placing the subjects before the
°., ºÁgÉÆúÀ½î, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ Board without the approval of
¥Áè¹ÖPï vÁådå ªÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÀÌgÀuÁ Chairman in unlawful and invalid.
WÀlPÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ
The CPCB has issued directions
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ under Section 5 of EP Act to
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß Chairman, KSPCB. The Board has
C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. issued Show Cause Notice to the
Officers and reply has been
received. Further, the consent
issued to the industry has been
withdrawn and the EPR registration
has been revoked. The Action is
being taken as per provisions of
the law.
13. If second respondent-Chairman has opined
that the proceedings in Agenda No.243:10 are
unlawful and invalid, the Member Secretary of
respondent No.1-Board could not have unilaterally
decided to place the proposal before respondent No.3-
State recommending petitioner's suspension. The
respondent No.2-Chairman on 16.12.2023 has written
to all Board Members that agenda 243:10 is
withdrawn since the same is placed without his
approval. Chairman having raised his objections and
having withdrawn the agenda 243:10 could not have
issued the suspension order vide Annexure-"A".
14. This Court has taken cognizance of all
these infractions which clearly demonstrate that the
impugned suspension order is prima facie found to be
in contravention of principles of natural justice and
procedural equity. The authorities have failed to
adhere to the principles of natural justice which
mandates that an individual must be given a
meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to imposition
of any punitive measures.
15. The fact that the authorities resolved to
issue show-cause notice also gives an indication that
the authority intended a pre-suspension hearing.
Failure to provide the delinquent individual with a pre-
suspension hearing not only runs afoul of procedural
fairness but has also exposed the decision of the
authority in placing the petitioner under suspension
and therefore, would warrant judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. On examining the material on record, this
Court is more than satisfied that suspension order was
issued in violation of relevant laws, rules and
procedures. This Court is also convinced that
suspension order lacks a proper legal basis. The
dissent note put by the Chairman also demonstrates
that the suspension order suffers from arbitrariness
and therefore, this Court is compelled to intervene so
as to prevent an abuse of administrative authority.
17. Keeping all contentions open, the
impugned suspension order is liable to be quashed
reserving liberty to the respondents to examine the
explanation offered by the petitioner to the show-
cause notice as per Annexure-K1. If the Chairman of
the Board has put a dissent note and the proceedings
of the Board Meeting indicates that agenda 243:10 of
the Board meeting held on 20.12.2023 is withdrawn,
the suspension order automatically stands vitiated.
18. However, it is made clear that the findings
and observations made by this Court are confined to
the order of suspension. This Court has taken
cognizance of the claim of respondent No.1-Board in
regard to violation of conditions of consent and EPR
Registration by the Industry. Respondent No.1-Board
is claiming that there are serious lapses for not
properly scrutinizing the application of the industry
while granting CTE, CFO, EPR registration.
Respondent No.1-Board is also of the view that the
industry so far has not physically operated the plant
and has submitted a false information in EPR portal for
processing of plastic waste. Therefore, the order
passed by this Court will not come in the way of
respondent No.1-Board from initiating proceedings
against erring officials in accordance with law.
19. In the light of the discussions made supra,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned suspension order dated
3.1.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is
hereby set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
