The State of Karnataka vs Sri Mallesh

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—Respondent was appointed as Railway Police Constable on 20.12.1982. After his appointment he was deputed to KSPTS, Channapatna for basic police training. But he left without completing his training and resigned from the post of Police Constable in the month of September, 1983. In the meanwhile, the respondent had applied to the post of Civil Police Constable and he was selected. The respondent reported for duty as Civil Police Constable in Chickpet Police Station on 13.9.1983. From 13.9.1983 to 28.6.1984, the respondent worked in Chickpet Police Station as Civil Police Constable. He was discharged from service as Civil Police Constable as per the Probation Rules, 1977 on 28.6.1984 inasmuch as his work was found unsatisfactory. In other words, the respondent was discharged from service during his probationary period. After his discharge as a Civil Police Constable, the respondent once again approached the Railway Police Authorities on 12.10.1984 to take him back to duty by withdrawing his resignation as his resignation was not accepted as on 12.10.1984. The Railway Police Authorities, reinstated the respondent into service w.e.f. 16.10.1984. He worked as Railway Police Constable for 20 years thereafter.

When the facts stood thus, an anonymous petition came to be lodged before Lokayukta on 7.6.2004 alleging fraud and other charges against the respondent. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry against the respondent on 19.5.2006. Charge memo was issued against him on 5.6.2006. Thus, it is clear that the enquiry was initiated against the respondent 22 years after he rejoining the establishment of Railway Police. Though the order of suspension is passed pending enquiry against the respondent, the respondent continued "in service because of the interim order granted in his favour by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.

The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted his report holding the charge levelled against the respondent as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, however on reappraisal of the material on record held the charge levelled against the respondent as proved and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on 19.9.2011. Against which, the respondent approached Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 6588/2011, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 31.1.2012. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of Application No. 6588/2011, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal had granted interim order in favour of the respondent and consequently, the respondent continued in service. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned advocates on record that the respondent continues to work as Railway Police Constable till this day.

Though a common charge is laid against the respondent, it can be divided in three parts:- a) that the respondent has drawn salary from Railway Police Establishment as well as Civil Police Establishment for the period from 13.9.1983 to 26.8.1984. Thus, the respondent has drawn double salary for the said period from both the Units;

b) that the respondent was discharged as Civil Police Constable during probationary period while working at Chickpet Police Station as he had involved in corruption charges;

c) that the respondent suppressed the fact that he was dismissed and by producing false Medical Certificates, he got reinstated in Railway Police and thus he misconducted himself.

As aforementioned, a detailed enquiry was held in respect of aforementioned charges. The Superintendent of Police, Railways, in his letter dated 9.7.2010 has stated that the respondent has not drawn salary from August, 1983 to June 1984 from Railway Police Establishment, which means that the respondent did not receive salary from Railway Police Establishment from the date of his tendering application for resignation till the date he was reinducted into service as Railway Police Constable. During the said period, he drew salary from Civil Police Unit only since he was working as Civil Police Constable at Chickpet Police Station. Thus, it is clear that the respondent has not drawn double salary i.e., from Chickpet Police Station as well as from Railway Police Unit as alleged. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal are justified in concluding that the first portion of the charge is not proved.

There is nothing on record to show that the respondent was discharged from service during probationary period based on corruption charges. Not even a single material is produced by the Department during the course of enquiry in that regard. Therefore, second portion of the charge is also rightly not held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.

So far as third portion of the charge is concerned, it seems that the Tribunal is not justified in holding that false Medical Certificates are not produced by the respondent, while seeking reinduction into service of Railway Police Establishment. Admittedly, the respondent was working as Civil Police during August 1983 to June 1984. Though we do not find a specific charge relating to submission of false Medical Certificates for a particular period, we find that Medical Certificates produced by the respondent must be false, inasmuch as the respondent had worked as Civil Police Constable during the interregnum. Thus, the Tribunal ought to have held that third portion of the charge relating to submission of false Medical Certificates by the respondent as proved. In this view of the mater, we conclude that third portion of the charge relating to submission of false Medical Certificates by the respondent is held to be proved.

We find that though the aforementioned error committed by the respondent was in the year 1984, charge memo was issued against the respondent in the year 2006, i.e., after lapse of 22 years. Though the enquiry has commenced in the year 2006, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed in the year 2011. However, the respondent continued in service till this day by virtue of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal. Respondent is said to be already aged about 52 to 53 years. In this view of the matter, interest of justice will be met if a lenient view is taken against the respondent by imposing penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the following order is made:--

The respondent is imposed with penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is modified to the said extent.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.