Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh H vs The Special Board And Appellate ... on 10 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
WA No. 932 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.932 OF 2023 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH .H
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O SRI. HANMANTHAPPA
SENIOR ASSISTANT
(UNDER ORDERS OF
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT)
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
RESIDENT OF NO.57,
18TH MAIN, BSK I STAGE, II BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
Digitally signed by
...APPELLANT
HARIKRISHNA V
Location: HIGH (BY SMT. TEJASWINI RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL BOARD AND
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
(RECRUITMENT & CONDITIONS
OF SERVICE RULES), 2003
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
WA No. 932 of 2023
2. THE SPEAKER,
KARNATAKA STATE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
DATED 09/06/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.1205/2016 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
WA No. 932 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This intra-Court appeal is filed challenging the legality
and correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.1205/2016
dated 09.06.2023 by the learned Single Judge of this Court,
whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant.
2. The facts-in-brief that are apposite for
consideration of the case on hand, as borne out from the
pleadings are as follows:-
The appellant was appointed as Typist in the Karnataka
Legislative Assembly Secretariat, in the year 1989.
Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Stenographer and
Senior Assistant. On 24.05.2012, the Deputy Secretary of the
Secretariat issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellant
alleging that, while he discharging his duties in connection
with the work of 6th Pay Commission in the Secretariat,
allegedly misbehaved with the Stenographer by abusing her in
filthy language and also behaved irresponsibly with the
Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary of Secretariat, who
visited the Section on that day. It is the further allegation that
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
the appellant, having submitted his leave letter, left the office
only to come back on 21.05.2012 and spoke tauntingly with
the Section Officer, who was posted in his place. As such, in
the Show Cause Notice, it is stated that the appellant had
conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Government
servant, which amounted to serious misconduct under Rule 3
of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. On receipt
of the said Show Cause Notice, the appellant submitted his
written reply dated 28.05.2012 by denying the allegations
canvassed in the Show Cause Notice. However, the said
reply/explanation offered by the appellant was not accepted
by the respondents. Consequently, a Disciplinary Proceedings
has been initiated against the appellant, a charge sheet and
imputation of charges were served to the appellant.
Subsequently, an enquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary
Authority and the Marshal of the House was directed to
submit a report, thereon, after an enquiry. Accordingly,
enquiry was held and a report was submitted by the Marshal
to the Disciplinary Authority. The appellant tendered his
explanation/defence statement dated 08.11.2012 before the
Disciplinary Authority denying the charges so levelled against
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
him. However, being dissatisfied with the explanation of the
appellant, the respondents decided to hold an enquiry and for
the said purpose, appointed one Sri Kukkaje Rama Krishna
Bhat, a retired District and Sessions Judge to hold an enquiry
into the charges levelled against the appellant under the
relevant provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as 'CCA Rules' for short). Accordingly, Enquiry
Proceedings has been held and there are as many as eight
witnesses have been examined in the Disciplinary Proceedings
as PW.1 to PW.8 and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted
his report to the Disciplinary Authority with the conclusion
that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved.
Based on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a
second Show Cause Notice dated 19.04.2014 calling upon the
appellant to submit his explanation. Pursuantly, the appellant
submitted his explanation by bringing out the illegalities,
discrepancies, improper or non-appreciation of the evidence
by the enquiring Authority. However, the Disciplinary
Authority rejected the explanation of the appellant and passed
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
the order dated 15.11.2014 imposing a major penalty of
Compulsory Retirement of the appellant.
3. Being aggrieved by the penalty so imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority dated 15.11.2014, the appellant
preferred an appeal before the Special Board and the
Appellate Authority under Rule 9 of the Karnataka Legislative
Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to 'Rules, 2003' for short)
and Schedule II thereto read with Rules 18, 19 and 22 of the
CCA Rules on 08.12.2014. However, after re-appreciating the
entire materials on record, the Appellate Authority rejected
the appeal preferred by the appellant vide order dated
03.11.2015 by upholding the imposition of penalty of
Compulsory Retirement by the Disciplinary Authority.
4. Nevertheless, the appellant has challenged both
the orders of Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority by filing a writ petition before the learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.No.1205/2016. However, learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant by upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
and the Appellate Authority. Challenge to the same is lis
before this Court.
5. We have heard Smt.Tejaswini Rajkumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Ravindranath, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant Smt.Tejaswini Rajkumar is that the learned
Single Judge has gravely erred in law by not considering the
aspect that the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority are vitiated in law as
they failed the test of substantive and procedural due process
mandated under Rules, 2003 read with CCA Rules. According
to her, Rule 8 of Rules 2003 categorically provides that the
Disciplinary Proceedings in respect of the staff of Karnataka
Legislative Assembly Secretariat shall be governed by CCA
Rules as modified under Schedule-II of Rules, 2003. As per
the classification provided in Schedule-II, the Speaker is the
Appointing Authority in so far as the appellant is concerned
and the penalty of Compulsory Retirement imposed on the
appellant is provided as major penalty under Rule 8 sub-rule
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
(vi) of CCA Rules, can be imposed only by the Appointing
Authority i.e., the Speaker. However, in the case on hand, the
penalty of Compulsory Retirement of the appellant is passed
by the Under Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly
Secretariat, which is wholly impermissible in law and without
any legal sanctity.
7. By emphasizing Rule 9 sub-rule (iii) of CCA Rules,
she would submit that, a non obstante clause which mandates
no penalty specified in clause (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 shall be
imposed by any authority below the Appointing Authority. As
such, the power vested with the Appointing Authority i.e.,
Speaker in the case of the appellant herein, for imposition of
such major penalty of Compulsory Retirement cannot be
delegated or passed by any other authority as per the
mandate of CCA Rules. Lastly, she would submit that the
Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the appellant are
vitiated in law since there is a violation of principles of natural
justice. While submitting so, she states that the copies of
exhibits and evidence adduced against the appellant were not
furnished to him nor the appellant permitted to cross-examine
the witnesses deposed against him. With these submissions,
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
she prays to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge so also the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority as stated supra.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondents Sri.Ravindranath sought to
justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge by
upholding the actions of the respondents and contended that
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated
15.11.2014 imposing major penalty of Compulsory
Retirement of the appellant though signed by the Under
Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, the
same is passed as per the orders of the Speaker. As such,
there are no such procedural irregularities in the said order as
contended by the appellant. He would further contend that
during the course of the Departmental Enquiry, fullest
opportunity was extended to the appellant and after
considering the material placed on record, the Disciplinary
Authority arrived at a conclusion that the conduct of the
appellant amounts to unbecoming of a State Government
Servant. Accordingly, the major penalty was imposed against
the appellant. As such, the learned Single Judge has rightly
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
uphold the orders passed by the respondent-Authorities by
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, which does
not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the writ appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
so also on perusal of the documents made available before us
including the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, by upholding the orders of the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority,
calls for any interference by this Court?
10. To address the first limb of argument advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed
by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority
are contrary to the procedure mandated under Rules 2003
and CCA Rules, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant
portion of the order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the
Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat:
"DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå : PÀ«¸À¸À/D-3/252//²PÀæ. zÀAqÀ£É/2014
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:15 £Éà £ÀªÉA§gï 2014
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è 1957 gÀ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«)
¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 11 gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ 2003 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÉ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄzÀ (£ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÉêÁ
µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 9 gÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, F ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ²æà ºÉZï
gÀªÉÄñï, »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ
1957 gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀV ÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8(vi) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj
¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ "PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ¤ªÀÈwÛ"UÉƽ¹zÉ.
¸À¨sÁzsÀåPÀëgÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ,
¸À»/-
(£ÀfÃgï CºÀªÀÄzï)
C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ,"
11. On careful perusal of the above order, it could be
seen that, though the said order was signed by the Under
Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, the
same has been passed as per the orders of the Speaker.
Admittedly, the Speaker is Appointing Authority insofar as the
appellant is concerned and also to impose major penalty
under Rule 8 sub rule 6 of Rules, he is the Competent
Authority. As such, the major penalty order passed against
the appellant dated 15.11.2014 juxtapose with the Rules
2003 and CCA Rules, we are of the view that the said order
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
does not suffers from any procedural lapse as mandated
under the said Rules.
12. As far as the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant that only the Appointing Authority
can impose the major penalty of Compulsory Retirement is
concerned, as per Section 6 (ii) of Rules 2003 in the
Notification dated 18.12.2023 issued by the Karnataka
Legislative Assembly Secretariat, the appointment of Group
'B', 'C' and 'D' shall be made by the Speaker and the appellant
was appointed as 'Typist' in the Karnataka Legislative
Assembly Secretariat in the year 1989, which comes under
Group-C category. Hence, the Speaker is the authorized
authority to pass such order of major penalty. Thus, we hold
the first limb of the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant against the appellant.
13. As far as the second limb of the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while
passing the major penalty orders by the Disciplinary Authority
and the Appellate Authority, principles of natural justice was
not followed by giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
in the Disciplinary Proceedings, also, cannot be accepted for
the reason that, on perusal of the entire records made
available before us including the Disciplinary Proceedings,
there are as many as eight witnesses have been examined as
PW.1 to PW.8 and all those witnesses have also cross-
examined by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Nevertheless, the appellant was given opportunities to reply
for the first Show Cause Notice so also the Second Show
Cause Notice. After due consideration of the reply statement
submitted by the appellant and after considering the evidence
adduced before the Disciplinary Authority, the major penalty
order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was
upheld by the Appellate Authority.
14. We have carefully analysed the evidence adduced
by PW.1 to PW.8 before the Disciplinary Authority. The same
depicts that all those witnesses have categorically deposed
about the act committed by the appellant herein, which
amounts to unbecoming of a Government servant as per CCA
Rules. There is no such acceptable or probable defence put
forwarded by the appellant herein to disbelieve the charges
levelled against him or to discard the evidence of PW.1 to
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37015-DB
PW.8 before the Disciplinary Authority. Such being the
position, we are of the considered view that both the
Authorities below have rightly passed the orders and the
learned Single Judge has rightly upheld those orders. There
are no good grounds forthcoming to interfere in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the
matter, we answer the point raised above in the negative and
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VM
