(BY SRI. B PRAMOD, ADV.) AND: SRI. T. C. RAGHVENDRA & Anr. v. SRI.Umesh Dhakar)

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023 DATED 28.03.2023 PASSED IN THE W.P.NO.7179/2022 (S-DIS) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/ DEEMED JUST AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.7179/2022 by which, respondent’s prayer to quash the impugned order of dismissal dated 09.03.2022, dispensing enquiry is set aside, granting reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Heard the learned counsel Sri.B.Pramod for appellants and learned counsel Sri. Shivaji H. Mane for respondent. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

The respondent was before the learned Single Judge of this Court questioning the order of dismissal - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023 dated 09.03.2022, dispensing the enquiry under Rule 153, in exercise of power under Rule 161(ii) of the Railway Police Force Rules, 1987 (for short, ‘1987 Rules’). Along with the respondent herein, Co-AGO was also alleged to have committed misconduct in the same incident, who was before this Court in W.P.No.7927/2022 and this Court by order dated 31.01.2023 allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of dismissal as no reasons are recorded for dispensing enquiry as required under Rule 161(ii) of 1987 Rules, with liberty to take action in accordance with law. Further holding that, the DGO would be entitled for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, with liberty to initiate enquiry as contemplated under the 1987 Rules. The said order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed under judgment dated 25.11.2024 W.A.No.571/2023.

Learned counsel appearing for both appellants and respondent herein have raised similar contentions as raised in W.A.No.571/2023. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023

In addition, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent on filing the writ petition, simultaneously filed appeal in terms of 1987 Rules and contends that respondent could not have pursued two parallel remedies.

In the normal circumstances, a person cannot pursue parallel remedies, but in the instant case, since action of the appellants who were respondents before the learned Single Judge is in total violation of principles of natural justice, we would not find fault with appellants in approaching this Court. In that, they failed to record any reasons for dispensing the enquiry in terms of Rule 161(ii) of 1987 Rules. There is no merit in the said contention.

Learned counsel the appellants also contended that learned Single Judge committed grave error in not granting liberty to take action in accordance with law and in granting consequential benefits. Learned counsel Sri.B.Pramod for appellants would submit that the question of entitlement for consequential benefits would - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49645-DB WA No. 681 of 2023 depend on the outcome of the enquiry that would be conducted against the respondent.

There is some this contention canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants.

Learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that dispensing of enquiry must be supported by reasons for dispensing the enquiry and enquiry would be necessary for imposing major punishment. When such conclusion is arrived at, learned Single Judge ought to have granted liberty to conduct enquiry in accordance with law and when such liberty is granted, entitlement of consequential benefits would depend on the outcome of the enquiry that would be conducted.