AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO)
The petitioner has called in question the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the first respondent in case No. Kam.E 30 BDP 2015 imposing the penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect and the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No. 500/2024 dismissing the challenge to the said penalty order.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:
The petitioner was working as First Division Assistant/Case Worker in the Taluk Office, Chitradurga, during the relevant period. A complaint was lodged by one E. Ravi, RTI activist, alleging irregularities in the grant of 11 acres of land bearing Sy.No.14/P1 of Echalanagenahalli village, Chitradurga Taluk, by the Taluk Level Bagar Hukum Committee on 12.09.2003. The investigation conducted by the Lokayuktha police indicated that the land was karab and unfit for agriculture, yet it was recommended as fit for agriculture, and subsequently two of the grantees obtained mining licences and carried on stone quarrying operations.
The Government entrusted the matter to the Upalokayuktha for departmental enquiry. Articles of charge were issued. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a full-fledged enquiry, submitted a report dated 13.02.2023 holding the charges proved against the petitioner. The Upalokayuktha recommended imposition of the penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect. After issuing a second show-cause notice and considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned penalty order dated 10.10.2023. The Tribunal, by the order dated 25.09.2024, dismissed the application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that:
the petitioner was only a Case Worker and had no authority to grant land or issue Saguvali Chits;
higher officers, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector, who were primarily responsible, were excluded from the disciplinary proceedings, rendering the action selective and discriminatory;
the recommendation of a definite punishment by the Upalokayuktha is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236;
the disciplinary authority did not properly consider the reply submitted by the petitioner; and
the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence and the grounds urged, resulting in a mechanical dismissal.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the impugned orders and submitted that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence, and no case of perversity or violation of principles of natural justice has been made out.
We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material on record, including the order of the Tribunal and the documents produced.
The scope of interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in matters of departmental enquiry is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj (2020) 3 SCC 423, and Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612, has consistently held that the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Interference is warranted only when the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, or when there is violation of the principles of natural justice, or when the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.
In the present case, the material on record discloses that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. On behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, two witnesses were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P35 were marked. On the defence side, three witnesses were examined as DW-1 to DW-3 and documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked. The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer, including the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-1) and the documents marked. The findings are supported by the material on record and cannot the charge of collusion and misconduct in processing the grant stands proved on evidence, the contention that the petitioner lacked authority loses significance. The alleged selective action against lower-level officials does not, by itself, vitiate the enquiry when the charges against the petitioner are independently established.
The contention based on Kharak Singh (Supra) is misconceived. The recommendation of the Upalokayuktha is only recommendatory in nature. The disciplinary authority has independently applied its mind after issuing a second show-cause notice and considering the reply of the petitioner. The penalty imposed is one of the penalties prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct.
The Tribunal has examined the matter within the limited parameters of judicial review available to it and has recorded cogent reasons for dismissing the application. No error of law or jurisdictional error is made out warranting interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
The order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the first respondent in case No. Kam.E 30 BDP 2015 and the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 500/2024 are affirmed.
No order as to costs.