Karnataka High Court
Peershetty S/O Bhimaraya Gobbur vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 12 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8552
WP No. 202411 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 202411 OF 2022 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. PEERSHETTY S/O BHIMARAYA GOBBUR
AGE. 40 YEARS
OCC. FDA, R/O SHAHABAD
TQ. CHITAPUR
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585 228.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BANGALORE-01
Digitally signed by REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR ROAD, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
VESHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR
BANGALORE-01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO, QUASH THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8552
WP No. 202411 of 2022
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
16.05.2020 BEARING NO.24949 DMA 16 FDA 2018-2019/7297
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner
assailing the endorsement issued by respondent No.2
dated 16.5.2020 bearing No.24949 DMA 16 FDA 2018-
2019/7297 evidenced at Annexure-G and consequent
denial of permission to the petitioner on the premise that a
criminal case is pending against him.
2. This matter was substantially heard on the last
date of hearing and the counsel on record sought an
adjournment to seek updates in the matter.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has placed before this Court the penalty order issued
against the petitioner following a departmental enquiry. He
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8552
submits that the penalty imposed, namely, the withholding
of two annual increments without cumulative effect for two
years, has been duly served by the petitioner. He contends
that, as per settled law, the imposition and subsequent
serving of such penalty do not constitute a permanent
disqualification for future promotion. The counsel
emphasizes that promotions cannot be denied on account
of minor penalties once the stipulated penalty period has
lapsed, particularly when no rule specifies such
disqualification post-completion of the penalty.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, after
perusing the penalty order placed on record, has assured
this Court that the petitioner's case for promotion will be
considered in accordance with law. The Government
Pleader has further assured that the
respondent/disciplinary authority is aware of its obligation
to comply with the established legal principles.
5. In view of the assurance provided by the
learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court deems
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8552
it appropriate to dispose of the captioned petition by
directing the respondent authorities to consider the
petitioner's case for promotion in accordance with law. The
consideration process shall take into account the fact that
the penalty imposed has already been served, and the
petitioner has now been restored to eligibility for
promotion without any legal or procedural impediment.
6. It is hereby directed that the respondent
authorities shall consider and decide the petitioner's
promotion within an outer limit of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This
directive aligns with the principle laid down in a catena of
judgments, which requires administrative authorities to act
expeditiously in promotion matters where eligibility is
established. It is further clarified that, having served the
penalty imposed upon him, the petitioner's promotion, if
granted, shall be considered with retrospective effect from
September 17, 2016. This directive draws from the legal
position established in P.N. Premachandran .vs. State
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8552
of Kerala1, which holds that promotions delayed due to
administrative or procedural reasons must be
retrospectively effective from the date on which they were
originally due.
7. In light of the submissions made and the
records placed before this Court, the writ petition stands
disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondent authorities are directed to
consider the petitioner's case for promotion strictly in
accordance with law, taking into account that the
penalty imposed upon the petitioner has been duly
served, and there exists no further disqualification for
consideration of his promotion.
(ii) The respondent authorities shall ensure that the
petitioner's case for promotion is processed and a
reasoned decision is rendered within an outer limit
of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
(iii) If the petitioner is found eligible for promotion,
the same shall be granted with retrospective
(2004) 1 SCC 245
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8552
effect from September 17, 2016, with all
consequential benefits, including seniority and
monetary entitlements, as applicable under the rules.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
