Karnataka High Court
G Shivakumar vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.10111 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI G. SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDAPPA
WATCHMAN, ACCOUNTS-II
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUSTICE
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED
DECEMBER 10, 2015 VIDE ORDER NO.HCE.1194/2010 IN AS MUCH
AS IT TREATS THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER
AS SUCH AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 15.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated
10.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A
and the consequent memo issued on a representation
submitted by the petitioner herein as per Annexure-B. The
petitioner is seeking a mandamus against respondent No.2 to
consider the representation dated 08.04.2019 and sanction
backwages and salary due to the petitioner during his period
of suspension.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner was appointed by respondent No.2 to the
post of watchman at High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi
Bench. The petitioner was placed under suspension on
account of registration of crime in Crime No.324/2010 for the
offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44 and 51 of the
Wild Life (Prevention) Act, 1972 read with Section 379 of IPC.
In the said complaint, it was alleged against the petitioner that
he has stolen 10 live turtles from the forest and had illegally
kept them at High Court quarters without any licence, permit
and pass. Based on the said compliant, investigation was
conducted and charge sheet was laid against the present
petitioner and other accused.
3. The petitioner made a representation on
08.08.2013 and brought to the notice of respondent No.2
about his acquittal of all the charges in C.C.No.2820/2011 and
therefore, a request was made to revoke his suspension. The
grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.2
taking cognizance of acquittal has revoked his suspension with
immediate effect, however, declined to grant monetary
benefits. Petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on
08.04.2019 thereby requesting to grant full salary for the
period he was placed under suspension. The respondent No.2
as per Annexure-B declined to grant monetary benefits on the
ground that acquittal was by giving benefit of doubt. The
second reason for denying salary for the suspension period
was on the ground that petitioner has not discharged official
duty during the period of suspension and has reported for duty
only on 11.12.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the petition has placed reliance on the
following judgments:
1) Union of India and Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad - (1997) 11
SCC 650;
2) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs. M.Prabhakar
Rao - (2011) 8 SCC 155;
3) Krishnakant R.Bibhavnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. - (1997) 3 SCC 636;
4) C.R.Radhakrishnan vs. State of Kerala and Ors. - (2017)
13 SCC 365;
5) P.Ramaswamy vs. General Manager, Canara Bank and Anr.
- (1998) 3 LLN 686;
6) Anish Gupta vs. Union of India and Anr. - 2019 SCC Online
Del 7383;
7) Union of India and Ors. vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Ors. -
(1991) 4 SCC 109;
8) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. vs. Mehar
Singh - (2013) 7 SCC 685;
9) Union of India vs. Methu Meda - (2022) 1 SCC 1;
10) Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - (2024) 1 SCC
175;
11) State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Debashish Mukherjee
and Ors. - (2011) 14 SCC 187.
5. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in
P.Ramaswamy vs. General Manager, Canara Bank
(supra) and in the case of Anish Gupta vs. Union of India
(supra), he would vehemently argue and contend that where
disciplinary proceedings post acquittal in criminal proceedings
are not conducted, full consequential monetary benefits are
required to be accorded to the concerned personnel. Reliance
is also placed on the judgments rendered in Commissioner
of Police, New Delhi vs. Mehar Singh, Union of India vs.
Methu Meda and Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).
Referring to these judgments, he would contend that
'Honourable acquittal' and such other concepts are only
relevant vis-à-vis departmental proceedings. On account of
acquittal in a fully contested criminal proceedings, he would
point out that the petitioner is entitled to seek monetary
benefits during the suspension period. He would also place
reliance on the judgment rendered in Union of India vs.
K.V.Jankiraman (supra) to substantiate that principle of 'no
work, no pay' has no application to the present set of facts
and therefore, he would request this Court to quash the
impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 as per
Annexure-B.
6. Referring to these judgments, he would point out
the fact that respondent No.2 has not initiated any
departmental enquiry and the fact that petitioner was
acquitted by the competent court, petitioner has to be deemed
to have been on duty for the period of suspension and
therefore, is entitled for full pay and allowances. While taking
this Court through the reasons assigned in the memo dated
12.09.2019 as per Annexure-B, he would point out that no
reasons are forthcoming to deny full salary during the period
of suspension.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would point out that the criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.2820/2011 ended in acquittal as two prime witnesses
turned hostile. Referring to the gravity of charges levelled
against the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents
would point out that petitioner being watchman in a higher
judiciary, the conduct alleged is relevant and a foundation for
prosecution and dehors acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence
which has culminated into an acquittal, though entitled for
reinstatement, cannot seek full salary. Reliance is placed on
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs.
M.Prabhakar Rao1.
(2011) 8 SCC 155
8. Referring to the conduct of petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondents would point out that the
petitioner's suspension was revoked on 10.12.2015 and the
representation seeking full salary is submitted only on
08.04.2019. Therefore, he would contend that there is
complete laxness on the part of petitioner and only on account
of inordinate delay, the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
9. Referring to Rule 14 and Rule 20 of the High Court
of Karnataka Services (Conditions of Services and
Recruitment) Rules, 1973 (for short 'Rules, 1973'), he would
contend that Hon'ble Chief Justice is the controlling and
disciplinary authority and the services of the High Court
employees shall be subject to superintendence and control of
the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The memo dated 12.09.2019 as per
Annexure-B is passed by the Chief Justice after considering
various factors by exercising power under Rule 20 and
therefore, no judicial review is warranted in the present case
on hand.
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
11. Petitioner who was appointed as a watchman was
prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39,
40, 44 and 51 of the Wild Life (Prevention) Act, 1972 read
with Section 379 of IPC. The allegations are that the present
petitioner along with other accused have stolen 10 live turtles
from the forest and they were illegally kept in High Court
quarters. Though the Investigating Officer has laid a charge
sheet, on account of prime witnesses having turned hostile,
the Court on account of witnesses to seizure mahazar having
given adverse statement was of the view that seizure mahazar
is not proved beyond doubt. The Court also found that there
is some discrepancies in the colours of the turtles and the
same was no indicated in the mahazar.
12. The petitioner was charge sheeted for the offence
punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44 and 51 of the Wild
Life (Prevention) Act, 1972 read with Section 379 of IPC and
the Investigating Officer has laid a charge sheet. The very
cause for suspension of petitioner was on account of grave
offences indicated while registering crime and also while laying
charge sheet. Therefore, bearing in mind the conduct alleged
against the petitioner by the prosecution, though has ended in
acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence, the question that
emerges for consideration before this Court is, as to whether
petitioner though is reinstated by taking a lenient view is
entitled to seek full salary for the period of suspension. If
respondent No.2, taking note of acquittal of the charges in
criminal trial, for lack of evidence, has formed its opinion that
petitioner is not entitled to seek monetary benefits for the
period of suspension, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the order passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B.
Having regard to the gravity of allegations, respondent No.2
was justified in treating suspension period as a period of not
on duty and I do not find any error in declining either payment
of suspension allowances or full salary as claimed by the
petitioner.
13. The conduct of employees of a higher judiciary has
to be put on a higher pedestal. Though legal evidence may be
insufficient to bring home the guilt of the petitioner, the act of
reinstatement itself would send a wrong signal to the society
as well as to the employees of the judiciary. Merely because
respondent No.2 has taken a lenient view and ordered for
reinstatement, that will not in itself constitute a ground for
petitioner to seek full salary for the period of suspension.
14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the respondents, the petitioner's action seeking full salary
lacks bonafides. Petitioner's suspension was revoked on
10.12.2015 and his claim for full salary in the representation
dated 08.08.2013 was rightly declined by respondent No.2.
The petitioner has submitted one more representation on
08.04.2019. There is a delay of more than three years in
seeking sanction of backwages due to the petitioner during his
period of suspension.
15. It is a trite law that Doctrine of laches in Court of
equity is not an arbitrary or a technical Doctrine, where it
would be practically unjust to give a remedy as the petitioner's
conduct in the present case on hand is found to be grossly
unfair and has to be regarded as equivalent to a waiver. The
lapse of time and delay are most material. Court while
examining such stale case have to be cautious and have to
take cognizance of the long delay and the nature of acts done
by a litigant during the interval. Court has to be also cautious
and examine as to whether any relief, if granted, which might
affect either party and gives a balance of justice or injustice.
Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed
by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A and the consequent
memo issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B.
16. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
