Karnataka High Court

The Chairman vs Sri S Purushothama on 4 July, 2024

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                         -1-
                                                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB
                                                                      WP No.100773 of 2024




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                      DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
                                                      PRESENT
                                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                                                         AND
                                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                      WRIT PETITION NO.100773 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
                           BETWEEN:
                           1.   THE CHAIRMAN,
                                KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
                                7TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA,
                                K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

                           2.   THE REGISTRAR,
                                KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
                                7TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA,
                                K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
                                                                             ...PETITIONERS
                           (BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

                           AND:
                           1.   SRI. S. PURUSHOTHAMA
                                AGE. 58 YEARS,
                                S/O. LATE. SRI. T. SONNAPPA,
                                PERSONAL SECRETARY-CUM-JUDGMENT WRITER,
           Digitally
           signed by K M
           SOMASHEKAR
                                O/O. REGISTRAR, K.S.A.T.,
                                7TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA,
KM         Location:
SOMASHEKAR HIGH COURT
           OF
           KARNATAKA
           DHARWAD


                                K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
           BENCH




                                R/AT: NO.52, 3RD FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
                                1ST MAIN ROAD, P.G. HALLI,
                                BANGALORE-560003.

                           2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                                D.P.A.R., VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                                BANGALORE-560001.
                                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R2,
                           RESPONDENT NO.1 PARTY-IN-PERSON-ABSENT)
                                    -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB
                                                WP No.100773 of 2024




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER QUASHING THE ORDERS
PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.5125/2023 ON 30.01.2024
(ANNEXURE-A) INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO PARA 13 AND 14 OF
ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONERS TO REINSTATE 1ST RESPONDENT
INTO SERVICE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND ALSO DIRECTING THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO REPORT FOR DUTY AFTER REINSTATEMENT.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY,
S G PANDIT J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                                 ORDER

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru

(for short 'Tribunal') is before this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and

legality of order dated 30.01.2024 in Application No.5125/2023

on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,

Bengaluru by which the application of respondent No.1

challenging the order of suspension is set aside with a direction

to the applicant/respondent No.1 herein to report for duty.

2. Heard Sri Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel for Sri.

Raghavendra Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for

respondent No.2. Respondent No.1/party-in-person is absent.

3. In the presence of respondent No.1/party-in-

person, after hearing his arguments on 30.05.2024, order was

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB

passed on the question of jurisdiction raised by the respondent

No.1/party-in-person. Thereafter, writ petition was posted to

13.06.2024, 22.06.2024 and 01.07.2024. On all the three

dates, respondent No.1/party-in-person remained absent. On

all three occasions, this Court directed the registry to inform

the respondent No.1/party-in-person by sending message to

his mobile number 9972720659. Office note indicates that

respondent No.1/party-in-person was informed through

Whatsapp with regard to the date of hearing.

4. Respondent No.1/Party-in-person is working as

Personal Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer in the Karnataka

State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru. Under impugned

order dated 1.12.2023 (Annexure-A11), respondent

No.1/applicant was kept under suspension under Rule 10(1)(d)

of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 19571 read with Karnataka Administrative

Tribunal (Conditions of Service, etc.) Rules, 1992 and

Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 2021, in

contemplation of initiation of Departmental Enquiry

proceedings, on the allegation of refusal to carryout or obey the

'CCA Rules, 1957', for short

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB

orders of Superior Officer. The said order of suspension dated

1.12.2033 was challenged by respondent No.1 before the

Tribunal in Application No.5125/2023. The Tribunal under

impugned order dated 30.01.2024 disposed off the said

application solely on the ground that no charge memo issued

against the applicant by observing that in the absence of

charge memo, continuation of suspension is not tenable and

accordingly, the applicant is entitled for reinstatement.

5. Sri. Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel for the

petitioners would contend that the Tribunal proceeded to direct

respondent No.1 i.e., Chairman of the Tribunal to reinstate the

applicant with immediate effect and directed the applicant i.e.,

respondent No.1 herein to report for duty after reinstatement,

without ascertaining as to whether charge memo is issued to

the applicant or not. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact

that in terms of Rule 10(5)(b) of CCA Rules, 1957, the Tribunal

had six months time to initiate enquiry by issuing charge

memo. It is submitted that respondent No.1/applicant was

kept under suspension on 1.12.2023; charge memo was issued

on 13.12.2023 and the same was dispatched on 14.12.2023 to

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB

the respondent No.1/applicant to his residential address,

however, he refused to receive the same on 16.12.2023. It is

also submitted that in terms of Annexure-G, order of

suspension was mailed to respondent No.1/applicant. Learned

counsel would submit that since charge memo was issued to

respondent No.1/applicant within 15 days from the date of

suspension, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to direct the

reinstatement of respondent No.1/applicant. Further, learned

counsel would submit that the Tribunal having come to a

conclusion that there was deliberate attempt on the part of the

applicant in not carrying out order of respondent

No.1/Chairman and also coming to a conclusion that the order

of respondent No.1/Chairman is not arbitrary, ought not to

have directed the reinstatement of the applicant. Thus, learned

counsel for the petitioners on these two grounds prays for

allowing the writ petition.

6. Learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar

for respondent No.2/State supports the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioners and would pray for quashing of the

impugned order of the Tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB

7. As stated above, respondent No.1/party-in-person

is absent.

8. Respondent No.1/applicant before the Tribunal is an

employee of the Tribunal working as Personal Secretary-cum-

Judgment Writer. Respondent No.1/applicant being a Personal

Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer has to conduct himself in a

disciplined manner and he cannot conduct himself like any

other employee. Personal Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer

attached to the Chairman or any Judicial Member or

Administrative Member of the Tribunal has great responsibility

and he plays vital role in discharging of judicial function by the

Members or Chairman of the Tribunal. It is the duty and

responsibility of the Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer to assist

the Tribunal in discharging judicial function.

9. A perusal of the impugned order of suspension

indicates that respondent No.1/applicant is in the habit of

disobeying the orders of Superior Officers including Chairman of

the Tribunal. Further it reveals that respondent No.1/applicant

has no regards to the orders of the Chairman-cum-Appointing

Authority/Disciplinary Authority and he has not attended the

work of the Tribunal. The Tribunal under impugned order has

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB

found that there is deliberate attempt on the part of the

applicant in not carrying out the order of respondent

No.1/Chairman and opined that the impugned order of

respondent No.1 is not arbitrary. Having come to such a

conclusion, the Tribunal ought to have ascertained as to

whether the Tribunal has issued any charge memo to the

applicant or not. In fact, the Tribunal issued charge memo on

13.12.2023, which was dispatched to respondent

No.1/applicant on 14.12.2023, who in turn, refused to accept

the same on 16.12.2023. In that regard, Annexure-F, postal

cover returned with an endorsement 'addressee refused' is

placed on record. It is unfortunate that no one brought to the

notice of the Tribunal about issuance of charge memo to the

respondent No.1/applicant.

10. Rule 10(5)(b) of CCA Rules, 1957 reads as under:

"If departmental inquiry is not commenced against the delinquent Government Servant or charge-sheet is not filed in the Court within a period of six months from suspension, the Competent Authority shall decide whether to revoke or continue suspension of such Government Servant and unless decided and ordered for continuation within this period, the suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked i.e., from the date of completion of a period of six months from the date of suspension. Upon such revocation of the order of his suspension, it shall be the duty of the Government Servant to immediately

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB

seek order of posting from the Appointing Authority, failing which, which he shall be deemed to be on unauthorized absence with effect from the date of revocation of the order of his suspension:

Provided that the Authority competent to place a Government servant under suspension may extend the period of suspension beyond the period specified in this clause, only after consulting, within the said period, with the authority referred in clause(a) only if such authority recommends extension within the said period. Otherwise, the order placing the Government servant under suspension shall stand revoked automatically under this clause."

11. A plain reading of the above rule makes it

abundantly clear that if Departmental Enquiry is not

commenced against the delinquent Government Servant or

charge sheet is not filed within a period of six months from the

date of suspension, the Competent Authority shall decide

whether to revoke or continue suspension of such Government

Servant and unless decided and ordered for continuation within

the said period, suspension shall be deemed to have been

revoked. While directing reinstatement of the

applicant/respondent No.1, the Tribunal has failed to notice the

above provision. When suspension in question was dated

1.12.2023 and when six months period as contemplated under

Rule 10(5)(b) of CCA Rules, 1957 has not expired, the Tribunal,

having come to the conclusion that order of suspension is not

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9185-DB

arbitrary, could not have directed respondent No.1/Chairman to

reinstate the applicant, respondent No.1 herein. We find

considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners.

12. Hence, we pass the following:

ORDER

a) Writ Petition stands allowed.

b) The impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed in Application No.5125/2023 by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside. Consequently, Application No.5125/2023 is dismissed.