Karnataka High Court
Rajkumar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 October, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
WP No. 201016 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO.201016 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
RAJKUMAR S/O LAXMAN WAJANTRI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCU:- POLICE INSPECTOR, GESCOM,
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584601.
R/O C/O H.NO.1-11-37-76/1,
KHCS COLONY, NEAR LION SCHOOL,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR - 584101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADV.)
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
AND:
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
ROOM NO. 219, II FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NORTH EASTERN ZONE,
IGP OFFICE, POLICE BHAVAN,
KALABURAGI, DISTl KALABURAGI - 585101.
3. THE ADDL. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CUM DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY OFFICER,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
WP No. 201016 of 2024
S.P. OFFICE, POLICE BHAVAN,
KALABURAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI - 585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED
22.03.2024, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION
NOS.20923 & 20924/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THE APPLICATION WHOLLY AS PRAYED IN
A.NO.20923 & 20924/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE- A FILED BEFORE
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT
KALABURAGI.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the
impugned order passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi in Application
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
Nos.20923 & 20924/2023 seeking to quash the impugned
Departmental Enquiry.
2. The Departmental Enquiry was initiated against
the petitioner having regard to certain observations and
remarks passed by the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Yadgir. In his judgment in Sessions Case
No.17/2010 at Para 41, the judgment commences with the
heading "Flaws and lapses committed by the Investigating
Officer PW.17 Rajakumar S/o Lakshman Vajantri."
3. It is held in the said judgment that the
investigation conducted by the investigating officer is not
only defective investigation but also unfair investigation.
It was observed that the investigating officer has not
attempted to produce the material before the Court in
which the tom-tom Auto where the accused had come to
the incident spot to commit the murder were not
produced. It was also held that it was not possible for the
investigating officer to trace out the Auto. The
investigating officer did not conduct the spot panchanama
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
on the very same day when the alleged incident took
place. The investigating officer has not cited one Suresh
as witness, who is the circumstantial witness for discovery
of weapon. The investigating officer did not record 161
Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 and C.W.7 immediately after
he came to know that they are the eyewitness. In this
manner, several defects were found in the investigation
and the learned Sessions Judge expressed his anguish that
due to defective and unfair investigation, the Court is
constrained to pass order of acquittal, in favour of the
accused persons. In para No.50 having regard to the
observations made in the judgment, the learned Sessions
Judge found it necessary to direct the Superintendent of
Police and the Inspector General of Police to take action
against the investigating officer for the lapses.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that
consequent to such observations and adverse remarks in
the judgment, show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner and thereafter article of charges were also
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
issued invoking Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police
(Disciplinary Proceedings), 1989. However, the petitioner
filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.No.205082/2014 seeking to expunge the adverse
remarks in the said judgment. Accordingly, the writ
petition was allowed on 27.03.2019 accepting the
contention of the petitioner that the adverse remarks were
passed by the learned Sessions Judge without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
adverse remarks were expunged by the learned Single
Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application
before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
challenging the initiation of enquiry by order dated
28.01.2013 and sought to quash the charge-sheet dated
11.02.2013 and further sought for writ of mandamus to
consider the petitioner's representations dated
31.05.2023. However, the Tribunal held that the
petitioner herein sought to challenge the two orders of
initiation of the enquiry and the charge-sheet after lapse
of 09 years. It was held that in terms of Section 21 of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
Administrative Tribunal Act, challenge should be raised
within a period of 01 year from which the impugned orders
are passed.
5. As regard the contention of the petitioner that
the department enquiry having been initiated only in terms
of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court and since
the adverse remarks were expunged by this Court, the
departmental enquiry should be dropped, the Tribunal is of
the opinion that the initiation of enquiry is not only based
on the orders passed by the Sessions Court, but it is based
on the preliminary report of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Yadgiri. Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept
the contention of the petitioner and on the other hand
directions were issued while disposing of the applications
that the departmental enquiry shall be concluded within a
period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of the
order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
place reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
Court in the case of Pawan N. Chandra Vs. Rajasthan
High Court and another [Civil Appeal No.7033/2001
dated 21.04.2009]. However, learned Government
Advocate points out that in the said judgment the initiation
of departmental enquiry was not based on any
observations in any judgment of a competent court. It
was based on the adverse remarks in the annual
confidential report. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has sought to place reliance on judgments of several other
High Courts. In the case of Pramod Shrivastava Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and another [W.P.(CR)
No.472/2021], the learned Judge has noticed the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of The State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Naim (AIR
1964 SC 703), wherein three tests were laid down in the
matter of consideration of expunging of adverse remarks
made against the persons or authorities whose conduct
comes for consideration before the Court of law, as
follows:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
"a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is
before the court or has an opportunity of
explaining or defending himself;
b) whether there is evidence on record appearing on
that conduct justifying the remarks; and
c) whether it is necessary for the decision of a case
as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that
conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial
pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and
should not normally depart in a sobriety,
modernization and reserve."
7. The learned counsel would also submit that
there are several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court, including P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Tamil
Nadu Housing Board [(2005) 6 SCC 636] where it was
held that protracted enquiry should be avoided not only in
interests of Government employee but also in public
interest and for inspiring confidence in minds of
Government employee. It was also held that mental
agony and sufferings of the delinquent officer due to the
protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
than punishment. It was also held that for the mistakes of
department, the officer should not be made to suffer and
accordingly the charge memo was quashed. The learned
counsel would therefore submit that having regard to the
admitted fact that the charge memo was issued in the
year 2013 and till date enquiry has not been concluded, it
is a fit case where the disciplinary proceedings must be
quashed.
8. However, learned Government Advocate would
submit that the petitioner cannot dispute the fact that
during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the
petitioner in the year 2014, orders of stay were passed by
the learned Single Judge and therefore the proceedings
could not be proceeded with. It is only after the disposal
of the writ petition on 27.03.2019, while expunging the
adverse remarks, opportunity was available to the
department to proceed further. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot contend that there is delay in concluding the
proceedings. It is further pointed out that after orders
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
were passed by the Tribunal directing that the proceedings
shall be concluded within a period of 04 months from the
date of receipt of copy of the order, after having received
the orders of the Tribunal, notice was issued to the
petitioner on 24.09.2024 calling upon the petitioner to
give a written reply or objections to the charge memo,
within a period of 04 days from the date of receipt of
notice. It is pointed from several other such notices which
are filed along with the memo dated 22.10.2024 that
despite such notices being issued, the petitioner has not
submitted the objections to the charge memo. On the
other hand, the petitioner has given two replies, one on
25.09.2024 and another on 08.10.2024 giving excuses for
not being able to participate in the enquiry proceedings
and for not filing the written reply to the charge memo.
The learned Government Advocate would therefore submit
that the petitioner cannot allege that the delay has
happened on account of the department. It is very clear
from the replies given by the petitioner that he is reluctant
to participate in the proceedings and on the other hand he
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
is trying to make allegations against the department for
the delay. Learned Government Advocate would submit
on instructions that if a date is fixed by this Court and the
petitioner files his written reply to the charge memo,
thereafter within a period of 03 months, the enquiry will
be concluded.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the
petitioner, the learned Government Advocate and on
perusal of the petition papers, this Court finds that
although the petitioner was able to get the adverse
remarks expunged at the hands of the learned Single
Judge in the writ petition filed by him, nevertheless no
directions were sought and neither was it directed by the
learned Single Judge that the departmental enquiry should
be terminated or should be concluded within a time frame.
Even before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
although a prayer was made by the petitioner challenging
the charge memo and departmental proceedings,
nevertheless the Tribunal did not accept the contention of
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
the petitioner. The Tribunal came to conclusion that
although it is true that show cause notice and charge
memo was issued consequent to the adverse remarks
found in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge,
nevertheless the initiation of departmental enquiry was not
based on the adverse remarks alone. It was found that a
preliminary report was submitted by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Yadgiri and based on the
material collected and the preliminary report, the
departmental proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is regarding the expunging of the adverse
remarks. Those judgments will not be of any help to the
petitioner, since admittedly the adverse remarks have
been expunged at the instance of the petitioner in a writ
petition filed before this Court. Nevertheless, if there is
sufficient material available indicating that due to lapses
on the part of the petitioner an accused person has gone
scot-free, the department is duty bound to proceed
against such officer for the lapses. In fact, the learned
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
Sessions Judge, in the judgment in para No.50 has pointed
out to various directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in such cases where lapses are found on the part of the
investigating officer. It has been pointed out that it would
be the duty of the department to take action against such
investigating officers for their lapses, since even a minor
lapse would translate into a judgment being rendered in
favour of the accused persons. Surely, such an act would
not be in public interest, if the lapses of an investigating
officer would translate into a judgment in favour of the
accused persons. That being the position, this Court is not
inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the departmental enquiry itself
should be closed.
10. Further, having regard to various notices issued
by the respondents and the replies given by the petitioner,
it is clear that the petitioner is seeking to protract the
proceedings and not the department. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered opinion that a specific time
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7811-DB
frame should be fixed to conclude the proceedings and at
the same time necessary directions are also required to be
given to the petitioner to co-operate and participate in the
proceedings.
11. For that purpose, the next date of hearing of
the proceedings shall be 05.11.2024. Before the next date
of hearing, the petitioner shall give a written reply or
objections to the charge memo. Thereafter, the
proceedings shall go on day-to-day and proceedings shall
be concluded within a period of three months from
05.11.2024.
With these observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA,BL
CT: PS
