Karnataka High Court
Vinodkumar Ratnakar vs The Joint Director And Ors on 13 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:154
WP No. 203504 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.203504 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
VINODKUMAR RATNAKAR
S/O SHIVAPPA RATNAKAR, AGE:42 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER-GRADE-II,
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
TORAVI LT-2, TQ AND DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K M GHATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
by SACHIN OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RETURNING
Location: High OFFICER, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ELECTION,
Court Of
Karnataka BEGALURU - 560027.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER SARAKARI
MOUKARARA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITH,
MAHAVEER ROAD, VIJAYAPUR - 586101.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER
AND VOTER LIST VERIFICATION AUTHORITY OF
VIJAYPUR, SARAKARI NOUKARARA SAHAKRA BANK
NIYAMITH, VIJAYAPUR-585106.
4. MR ARJUN GANGU LAMANI
S/O GANGU LAMANI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:154
WP No. 203504 of 2024
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER,
GOVERNMENT LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
SHIVAJI NAGAR, BARATAGI
TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586119.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA SAHUKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI VIRANAGOUDA M BIRADAR, ADV FOR R2;
SRI AMRESH S ROJA, ADV FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) WRIT OF
MANDAMUS / ORDER / DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 NOT TO ENTERTAIN THE
NOMINATION IF ANY TO BE FILED BY THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT IN THE ELECTION PROCESS OF BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF 2ND RESPONDENT BANK, IN VIEW OF THE
DISQUALIFICATION SUFFERED BY T HE FOURTH RESPONDENT,
IN VIEW OF THE BY LAWS AND RULES AND DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C
TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to
entertain the nomination, if any, filed by the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:154
No.4 in the election to the Board of Directors of
respondent No.2, in view of his disqualification.
2. The petitioner contends that he and respondent
No.4 are the members of respondent No.2. Respondent
No.1 proposed to hold the election to the Board of
Directors of respondent No.2 and appointed respondent
No.3 as the Returning Officer to prepare voters list and to
conduct the election as per calendar of events. The
petitioner contends that respondent No.4 was serving as
an Assistant Teacher and was also running a lottery in the
name of his wife and cheated many teachers. A
disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him, where he
was held guilty of all the charges. He contends that
respondent No.4 challenged the order of disciplinary
authority before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
in application Nos.20641 and 20642/2021 and the said
applications were allowed in part and the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority was modified and a
lesser punishment was imposed. It is therefore contended
NC: 2025:KHC-K:154
that as per the bye-laws of respondent No.2, respondent
No.4 has incurred disqualification and therefore cannot
continue as a member of respondent No.2. He contended
that respondent No.4 is therefore not entitled to contest
the election to the Board of Directors. Nonetheless,
respondent No.4 had submitted his nomination and
respondent No.3 was in the process of accepting it.
Therefore, petitioner is before this Court seeking for a writ
in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 not
to entertain the nomination of respondent No.4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the bye-laws of respondent No.2 provide that a
member would be disqualified, if he is convicted of any
offence involving moral turpitude. He submits that the
order of disciplinary authority, which was later modified by
the KAT was akin to a conviction of respondent No.4 and
therefore, respondent No.4 suffered disqualification.
Therefore, he submits that respondent No.4 cannot be
permitted to file his nomination.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:154
4. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his
contention placed reliance on the judgment of High Court
of Allahabad in the case of Mangali V/s Chhakki Lal And
Ors1 and contended that the word 'moral turpitude' is not
defined anywhere, but, it means anything done contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. Therefore, he
submits that respondent No.4, having suffered an order of
disciplinary authority for conducting a lottery, despite
being a employee of the State Government, has to be
construed as having been convicted for an offence
involving moral turpitude.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4
submits that this writ petition has become infructuous as
nomination of respondent No.4 is already accepted and the
result of the elections to the Board of Directors was
declared on 05.01.2025 and that he is elected as the
Director. Further, he submits that the respondent No.4 is
AIR 1963 Allahabad 527
NC: 2025:KHC-K:154
not convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude and
therefore, respondent No.4 has not suffered any
disqualification under the bye-laws.
6. Respondent No.4 does not dispute the fact that
a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him on the
charge that he was conducting lottery in the name of his
wife and that he had cheated many teachers. The
disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction of
4 increments with cumulative effect and had also declared
a promotion holiday for four years. It is not in dispute that
this order was challenged before the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal in application Nos.201641 to
201642/2021. The Tribunal in terms of the order dated
23.08.2023, modified the punishment imposed by setting
aside the punishment of postponing the promotion for a
period of 4 years.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that this amounted to conviction for offence
NC: 2025:KHC-K:154
involving moral turpitude cannot be accepted for the
simple reason that respondent No.4 was accused of
misconduct for having conducted a business, even while
being employed under the State Government. The
allegation against him was one of the misconduct and till
date, there has been no offence registered against him
and he is not convicted of any offence involving moral
turpitude. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, since
respondent No.4 is now elected as the director of Board of
Directors, the appropriate remedy available for the
petitioner is to challenge his election in accordance with
law before the appropriate Court.
8. In that view of the matter, petition is dismissed.
However, liberty as mentioned above is reserved.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
NJ
