Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. M. Seenappa on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
WP No. 2921 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 2921 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DIVISION,
BMTC BUILDING, K G ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI D 4. THE TAHSILDAR,
Location: High
Court of GUDIBANDE TALUK - 561209
Karnataka CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA.)
AND:
SRI. M. SEENAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS DAFFEDAR,
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
WP No. 2921 of 2024
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
R/AT NEAR PRAGATHI SCHOOL,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV. FOR
SRI. LOKESH M., ADV. FOR C/R1 IN FR CP NO.19137/2023.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
30.10.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No. 3027/2022 C/W
APPLICATION No.5941/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order
dated 30.10.2023 passed in Application No.3027/2022
c/w. Application No.5941/2022 vide Annexure-A passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter
referred to as ' Tribunal' for short).
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
2. Heard the learned Government Advocate
appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned Government
Advocate that the private respondent after completion of
10 years of service as a daily wage employee has been
regularized in the year 1991 as a Group-D employee. He
was promoted as Daffedar on 17.08.2015 and was
transferred to Taluk Office, Bagepalli by order dated
30.07.2016. Though he was relieved from the place
where he was working on 01.09.2016, he did not join
duty at the Taluk Office, Bagepalli. It is submitted that
the show cause notice has been issued to the private
respondent by the third petitioner seeking initiation of
departmental enquiry enquiring the respondent to show
cause as to why the proceedings should not be initiated for
unauthorised absence from 01.09.2016 to 28.02.2021.
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
4. It is submitted that the private respondent had
filed Application Nos.3027/2022 and 5941/2022. The first
application was filed challenging Annexure-A13
proceedings dated 16.07.2021 and Annexure-A14
endorsement dated 21.01.2022; while Application No.5941
was filed seeking quashing the show cause notice dated
25.11.2022 (Annexure-A15). The Tribunal considered the
contentions advanced and held that the show cause notice
was illegal and the same was quashed, and a cost of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) was imposed on
the petitioner. Further, it was held that the period from
01.09.2016 to 07.11.2016 shall be regulated as earned
leave admissible to the applicant and the balance as
extraordinary leave as 'dies-non' without break in service.
It was further ordered that the period from 26.11.2016 to
17.02.2021 shall be regularized as period spent on duty on
'compulsory wait'.
5. Learned Government Advocate contends that
since it was an admitted fact that the private respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
had been relieved on 01.09.2016 and since he had
reported for duty only on 26.11.2016, the order of the
Tribunal insofar as it directs treating the said period as
admissible leave was erroneous.
6. It was further contended that even after
submitting the letter dated 26.11.2016, the respondent
has taken no steps to actually carryout his duties and
therefore, the said period also would not have been
regularized as on duty. It is submitted that there was
clearly a delay on the part of private respondent seeking
posting from the third petitioner and approaching the
Tribunal as well. In the said circumstances, the direction
issued by the Tribunal is erroneous. Further, it is
submitted that only on account of inaction on the part of
the officer in the Taluk Office at Bagepalli in properly
recording the communication received, the delay in
granting posting order has occurred and therefore, the
Tribunal was not justified in ordering costs, especially in
view of the fact that the applicant had been allowed to
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
treat the period from 26.11.2016 to 17.02.2021 as duty
and would be paid salary and all other benefits for that
period without actually doing any work.
7. Learned counsel for the private respondent on
the other hand submits that it was an admitted fact that
the private respondent had approached the third petitioner
seeking posting orders on 26.11.2016. It is submitted
that even thereafter, he had repeatedly approached the
third petitioner seeking posting orders in the year 2017-
2018 and it is only after the application had been filed
seeking posting orders for the year 2020, the posting had
been granted to the private respondent on 17.02.2021.
8. It is submitted that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is clear that the failure to
issue posting orders was on account of failure of third
petitioner to act in time and the private respondent cannot
be found fault with for the said failure. It is submitted that
the Application No.198/2020 had been filed before the
Tribunal and was disposed on 15.03.2021 only after
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
posting orders were granted. It is thereafter that the
orders impugned had been challenged before the Tribunal
which is well in time.
9. We have considered the contentions advanced
by either side. It is clear that the private respondent who
was working as Daffedar had been relieved from the office
of the Tahasildar, Gudibande in Chikkaballapur District on
01.09.2016. It is submitted that he had reported for duty
at Bagepalli on 07.11.2016. However, the Tahsildar,
Bagepalli had issued endorsement on 26.11.2016 stating
that the post of Daffedar is not vacant in the said office.
10. The private respondent had approached the
third petitioner seeking posting order on 26.11.2016.
Several further requests had also been made but went in
vain. It is clear that only on 17.02.2021, posting order
had been issued to the private respondent. The reasons
for the delay had been considered by the Tribunal and the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the delay in granting
posting orders was on account of the failure of the third
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
petitioner and not on the part of the private respondent.
It is on this reasoning that the Tribunal has directed
treating of the period from 26.11.2017 to 17.02.2021 as
period spent on 'compulsory wait' for posting. Though the
learned Government Advocate vehemently contended that
the period from 01.09.2016 to 25.11.2016 was liable to be
treated as 'dies non', in view of the fact that the Tribunal
had considered the rival contentions as the questions of
facts and had came to the definite conclusion that the
delay in issuing the posting orders to the applicant was
purely on account of the failure of the 3rd petitioner, we
find no material to differ from the said finding of the
Tribunal in this regard.
11. However, after having heard the contentions
from either side and in view of the submissions made by
the learned Government Advocate, we are of the opinion
that it is not a fit case for imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten thousand only) since the private respondent
would get all monetary benefits from 26.11.2017 onwards
NC: 2024:KHC:30229-DB
without actually carrying out the duties attached to the
post.
12. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed in part.
The direction to the 3rd Petitioner to pay costs is set aside.
All other directions are upheld.
13. The third petitioner shall comply with other
directions of the Tribunal within two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SSD
