Karnataka High Court
Dr M R Niranjan Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18012-DB
WA No. 95 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. M. R. NIRANJAN GOWDA
S/O. LATE M. L. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WAS WORKING AS DIRECTOR (IN-CHARGE)
SANJAY GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TRAUMA
AND ORTHOPAEDICS
BYRASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 011
R/AT No. 79/7
14TH MAIN JAYANAGAR IV BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.S. BHAGAWAT SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
Digitally SRI VISHALARAGHU H.L., ADVOCATE)
signed by
VALLI AND:
MARIMUTHU
Location: High 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court of
Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
REP BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SANJAY GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TRAUMA
AND ORTHOPEDICS
REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN
GOVERNING COUNCIL
BYRASANDRA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18012-DB
WA No. 95 of 2024
JAYANAGARA EAST
BANGALORE - 560 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 19/12/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP NO.28506/2023 FILED BY PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.28506/2023 AS
SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND PASS ANY
OTHER ORDER, INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, CHIEF
JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.S. Bhagawat assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Vishalaraghu H.L for the appellant and learned
Additional Government Advocate Ms.Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1.
2. Preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1971,
the present writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
19.12.2023 of learned Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge
dismissed the petition of the appellant-petitioner. The writ petition came
to be filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the chargsheet issued to
him. The chargsheet was sought to be assailed on two main grounds.
NC: 2024:KHC:18012-DB
Firstly, that the same was issued by the authority who was incompetent
to issue the same. The second ground was that the charges levelled
against the petitioner were too vague to the countenanced.
3. Learned Single Judge dealt with both the aspects of the
controversy raised by the petitioner to observe about the competency to
issue the chargsheet, as under in paragraph 4 of the order, to negative
the said contention,
"In W.P.No.19113/2023 which was filed by the
petitioner, the State Government had filed a copy of
the C and R Rules which had been filed before the
District Registrar in which it is stated that the Vice
Chairman of the Governing Council would be the
Disciplinary Authority in respect of a Director. In that
view of the matter, this argument that the charge
sheet was issued by an incompetent authority cannot
be accepted."
4. The other contention that the charges are vague was also closely
examined by learned Single Judge by noticing in detail, the charges to
come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner
could not be said to be vague. It was observed that the contentions of
the petitioner were essentially a defense which could be raised by him.
5. In any view, this Court has gone through the content of charges
and the Court endorses to the view of learned Single Judge and the
charges could not be said to be vague. It was also sought to be argued
that the writ petition which challenged the charge memo was premature
NC: 2024:KHC:18012-DB
to be liable to be entertained. It is further observed that the petitioner
could always raise all the objections in his defense in the inquiry
proceedings.
6. All objections which may be raised in accordance with law by the
petitioner in the inquiry proceedings shall be considered by the Inquiry
Officer on merits.
7. No error could therefore be booked in the order of learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition. The present appeal stands meritless
and the same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory application
would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DDU
