Karnataka High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3658
WP No. 200882 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO.200882 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SUNIL S/O SAMPATH CHAKRAD
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
URBAN AND RURAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
R/O H NO. 11-1041/21/1/390, GDA LAYOUT,
HIRAPUR CROSS,
KALABURAGI-585103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLOANKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
UNDER SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASHA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT ARATI PATIL, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3658
WP No. 200882 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. NAAE 78 NAYOSE 2016 DATED
12-03-2024 (ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REINSTATE THE
PETITIONER INTO SERVICE AMD ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by
quashing the impugned endorsement bearing
No. NAAE 78 NAYOSE 2016 dated 12-03-2024
(Annexure-G) issued by the respondent No.1
and direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate the
petitioner into service."
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3658
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was an accused in a Special Case No.05/2016
(Lokayukta) and he was charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section
13 (i) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After
holding the trial, the learned Special Judge has convicted
the accused by the judgment dated 13.10.2020 for the
above said offences and sentenced accordingly.
3. The petitioner had challenged the said
judgment before this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.200120/2020. This Court after hearing both the
parties, by judgment dated 10.07.2023 allowed the appeal
and set-aside the judgment passed by the Special Court in
Special Case No.5/2016 dated 13.10.2020.
4. The Government Order at Annexure-A dated
15.02.2021 ordered to dismiss the petitioner from the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3658
service in view of the conviction of petitioner in Special
Case No.5/2016.
5. After passing of judgment in the appeal in
Crl.A.No.200120/2020 by the High Court of Karnataka,
petitioner has given representation seeking to set aside
the order of dismissal, since he was acquitted in the
criminal case registered against him by the Appellate
Court. The Government has not considered the same.
Therefore, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition
No.202666/2023 to consider his representation dated
31.07.2023 and 18.08.2023. The co-ordinate bench of this
Court heard the matter and by order dated 21.09.2023
allowed the writ petition and directed the Government to
consider the representation made by the petitioner. The
order is at Annexure-E.
6. Thereafter the Government considered the
representation by order dated 12.03.2024 vide Annexure-
G rejected the representation stating that mere his
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3658
acquittal in a criminal case is not a "honourable acquittal",
therefore, the representation cannot be considered. The
said order is impugned in the present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that Annexure-A i.e. order dated 15.02.2021 was
passed solely relying on the judgment passed by the Trial
Court regarding conviction of the petitioner in the said
criminal case i.e. Special Case No.5/2016. The petitioner
did not challenge the said order since he had filed an
appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.200120/2020. The said criminal appeal was disposed of
on 10.07.2023 on merits and set aside the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in
Special Case No.5/2016. Thereafter he made
representation for reinstatement into the service.
8. It is not the case of learned High Court
Government Pleader that any appeal is filed before the
competent forum challenging the judgment passed by the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3658
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.200120/2020 dated 10.07.2023; or the said judgment
is modified, set aside by any other competent Court.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently contends that departmental enquiry is pending
against the petitioner, which is yet to be heard and orders
needs to be passed. Therefore, he cannot be reinstated in
to service.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was not dismissed from the service on
the ground that departmental enquiry was pending but on
the ground that he was convicted in Special Case
No.5/2016. When the said judgment is set aside and he
was honourably acquitted, question of continuing of his
dismissal on the ground of pendency of departmental
enquiry holds no water.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3658
11. The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is tenable. Annexure-A clearly indicates that the
petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In
view of the same and in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.R.P.No.770/2001 dated
02.08.2001 that a Government Servant shall be dismissed
if he is convicted by a competent Court of a criminal
offence. On the basis of said facts he was dismissed from
the service. When the said conviction itself is set aside,
question of continuation of dismissal does not arise.
12. On the contrary, the Government ought to have
considered his representation and passed a suitable
orders. However the Government has given an
endorsement stating that it was not 'honourable acquittal'.
It is not clear what is the meaning of 'honourable acquittal'
from the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case.
However, the reasons for rejection of the representation is
not legally sustainable.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3658
13. It is made clear that reinstatement of the
petitioner does not in any way affect the departmental
enquiry said to be pending against him. Under these
circumstances, petitioner is entitled for the relief sought.
14. For the aforesaid discussions, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the
respondent-Government bearing
No.NaAE/78/NaYoSe/2016 dated
12.03.2024, vide Annexure-G is
quashed.
(iii) Respondent is directed to reinstate
petitioner within four weeks from the
date of this order and he is also entitled
for other service benefits.
In view of disposal of writ petition, all pending IAs, if
any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ/SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34;CT:PK
