Writ Petition No. 4261 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4261 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHIVAKUMAR S.C. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O. CHANGAPPA S.B. R/AT. B. SHANTAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, KODAGU-571236. (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INQUIRING OFFICER 8, M.S.B.-1, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560052 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY (KRIES) CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560052 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
Legal Reasoning
SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 29.12.2023, AS PER ANNEXURE-A 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 The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 29.12.2023. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to stay the departmental enquiry against him till conclusion of criminal proceedings against him in Spl.C.No.150/2023. 2. (i) The petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education teacher in Morarji Desai Residential School, Kondagallu, Kottur Taluk, Vijayanagar district. He was thereafter promoted as a Principal of the said school. On 16.12.2022, the Child Helpline Team attended the Child Welfare Committee meeting to discuss regarding a complaint lodged by the students of Morarji Desai Residential School against the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 (ii) It was alleged that the petitioner had sexually harassed the girls studying in Morarji Desai Residential School. The Chairman and the members of Child Welfare Committee visited the school on 17.12.2022 and thereafter, they lodged a complaint with jurisdictional police on 19.12.2022. The jurisdictional police registered Cr.No.277/2022 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'). (iii) It is contended that the petitioner was arrested on the same day and was kept in judicial custody. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') in Spl.C.No.150/2023. The petitioner was placed under suspension, in view of his alleged misconduct. The petitioner was granted bail and after release from judicial custody, he sent a reply to revoke his suspension and reappoint him to the post of Principal. The respondent No.2 informed the petitioner on 04.08.2023 that a disciplinary enquiry would be held against him under Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 (for short 'Rules, 1957'). The petitioner was served with a charge memo, to which he replied. Thereafter on 04.10.2023, he was informed that the disciplinary authority has not considered his reply satisfactorily and therefore, proceeded to hold enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules, 1957. (iv) It is contended that the petitioner submitted a representation on 26.10.2023 seeking to stay the disciplinary proceedings, in view of pendency of parallel criminal proceedings. When things stood thus, the respondent No.2 revoked the order of suspension of petitioner and transferred him as a Principal of another school. Thereafter, on 18.12.2023 the petitioner submitted another representation seeking change of the enquiry officer. He then followed it up by another representation dated 29.12.2023 requesting the respondent No.2 to furnish endorsement regarding consideration of his representations dated 26.10.2023 and 18.12.2023. However, the representations were not considered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to consider the representation and also to stay the departmental proceedings pending conclusion of criminal proceedings. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry are substantially the same in the criminal proceedings. He contends that the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are the same witnesses mentioned in the departmental proceedings. He therefore, contends that it is prudent to await the outcome of the criminal case. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another - (1999) 3 SCC 679 and contended that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment referred above and therefore, the respondents are bound to consider the representations of the petitioner. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 by filing statement of objections inter alia contending that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.Paul Anthony referred supra, there was no finding that departmental proceedings have to be stayed until conclusion of criminal proceedings. He referred to the aforesaid judgment and contended that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is itself subject to certain other factors which are mentioned therein and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 that there is an absolute bar against conduct of departmental proceedings in the face of a pending criminal case. He submits that the petitioner has been unduly delaying the proceedings before the criminal Court and has not appeared before it and charge is yet to be framed even though two years have passed after the charge sheet was filed. Further, in support of the contention that there is no bar against both the proceedings, continuing parallely, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Neelam Nag - 2016 (9) SCC 491 and M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. and others - AIR 2014 SC 989. He therefore, contends that any direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representations of the petitioner would only further prolong the departmental enquiry. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate also supports the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner however refutes the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and claims that the petitioner has been diligent in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 appearing before the Court and that the proceedings in the criminal case have not delayed because of the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 8. The petitioner was charged with offences punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act read with Section 506 of IPC. It is not in dispute that the charges are still not framed, even after two years from the date of filing the charge sheet. The departmental proceedings on the other hand were initiated by issuance of a charge memo dated 04.08.2023. It is a matter of common knowledge that students in the institution once they pass out, would not be available to record their evidence in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, it is imminent that the departmental proceedings are taken up at the earliest. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony referred supra has laid down certain criteria for conduct of criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings and therefore the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 departmental proceedings in the instant case should be stopped, does not appeal to the mind of this Court, as the criminal case has not made any headway, while the departmental proceedings has already commenced and the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the charge memo. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.Paul Anthony had specifically held that the conclusions drawn by it at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 shall not be considered in isolation, to stay the departmental proceedings, but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. The Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of pendency of criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with, so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. Therefore, this is yet another case where this Court should compel the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 conclusion of departmental proceedings at the earliest and the petitioner cannot throw a spanner into the works. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves
Decision
to be disposed off on the following terms: (i) The writ petition is disposed off. (ii) The relief sought for by the petitioner does not merit consideration and the same is rejected. (iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to take up the enquiry on a day to day basis and conclude the same at the earliest, which at any rate, shall not go beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) It is made clear that if the petitioner does not cooperate with the enquiry, the respondent No.2 is at liberty to proceed with enquiry in accordance with law. (v) The request of the petitioner for change of enquiry officer is rejected. However, if the enquiry officer suffers from any disqualification, it is open for the petitioner to make appropriate request before the disciplinary authority along with all required material. In such an event, the disciplinary - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17805 WP No. 4261 of 2024 authority may consider the same in accordance with law and dispose it off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22