Writ Petition No. 23369 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 23369 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. H B KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE H D RANGAIAH WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU -560102 R/AT NO.298/6, MARUTHI NAGAR GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216. (BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR SRI MARUTHI S., ADV.) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU- 560102. (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1) …RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CHARGE BEARING NO.DTD 30.05.2024 VIDE ANNX-L, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTION THE RESPONDENT TO DECLARES OF HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD AS SATISFACTORILY. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER
Facts
The petitioner, First Division Assistant working at respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (for short “BDA”) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the charge memo bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/D/GPÁ-1/¹«/140/2023-24 dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure-L) and consequently to direct the respondent to declare the probationary period of the petitioner as satisfactorily completed and grant all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are: While the petitioner was working as First Division Assistant in the respondent-BDA, the petitioner was dismissed from service under order dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure-B), on the allegation that the petitioner has produced fabricated SSLC marks card. Questioning the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 said order of dismissal, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.23312/2017. This Court, by order dated 26.04.20418 set aside the order of dismissal dated 24.05.2017 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with liberty to the respondent-BDA to issue appropriate show-cause notice/charge sheet providing opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter proceed further. Accordingly, the respondent-BDA issued Articles of Charge to the petitioner on 30.05.2019 (Annexure-F). The Law Officer of the BDA, one
Legal Reasoning
petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Smt.Sarvamangala Chikkanagoudar for Sri.S.Maruthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent-BDA. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without conducting any enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service under the impugned order dated 24.05.2017 which was the subject matter of W.P.No.23312/2017. This Court set aside the order of dismissal with a direction to issue Article of Charges and proceed further. It is submitted that Sri.B.A.Muchandi Retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the said Enquiry Officer has completed the enquiry. On completing the enquiry, it is submitted that it is not open for the respondent-BDA to issue one more article of charge. Learned counsel would submit that no enquiry for the second time on the same charge is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 permissible and it is contended that it would amount to double jeopardy. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner cannot be forced to face another enquiry on the same set of facts and Article of Charges. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on reliance on the decision in W.P.No.29334/2012 decided on 17.03.2022 (P.Karunagaran v/s The Secretary to Government and others). Thus, learned counsel would
Arguments
Sri.B.A.Muchandi, a retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer issued notice of enquiry. In the meanwhile, the said Law Officer was relieved from BDA and on his relieving as Law Officer from the BDA, the said Enquiry Officer failed to handover enquiry file and notice issued to the said Enquiry Officer to return the file has also not yielded any result. In the said circumstances, fresh Article of Charges dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure-L) came to be issued by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 respondent-BDA. Questioning the said Article of Charges,
Decision
pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.K.Krishna for respondent-BDA would submit that the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire against the petitioner in respect of the charge memo dated 30.05.2019 failed to conduct enquiry or return the enquiry file on dispensing his service as Law Officer of respondent-BDA. Learned counsel would submit that in the absence of entire records being not returned by the earlier Enquiry Officer, the respondent had no other alternative but to issue fresh charge memo on the same incident of submitting forged marks cards to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 respondent-BDA. Learned counsel would submit that since the enquiry is not conducted and enquiry is not completed it is within the competence of respondent-BDA to issue fresh charge memo. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition and further submits that the respondent-BDA would complete the enquiry within six months. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only question that falls for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case is as to whether the respondent-BDA is justified in issuing second charge memo? 7. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative and the respondent-BDA is justified in issuing second charge memo for the following reasons: It is an admitted fact that respondent-BDA dismissed the petitioner under order dated 24.05.2017 on the allegation that the SSLC marks cards submitted by the petitioner are not genuine and are fabricated. The said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 order of dismissal was the subject matter of W.P.No.23312/2017 and this Court, by its order dated 26.04.2019 set aside the order of dismissal, with liberty to the respondent-BDA to issue show-cause notice/charge sheet providing opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter proceed further. In terms of the observation of this Court, Article of Charges dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure-F) was issued to the petitioner and Enquiry Officer one Sri.B.A.Muchandi, a retired District and Sessions Judge who was working as Law Officer in the respondent-BDA was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer issued notice to proceed with the enquiry. But at that time, the services of the said Enquiry Officer in the respondent-BDA was dispensed with. On relieving, the said Enquiry Officer ought to have returned the enquiry file to respondent-BDA. But, the assertion of the BDA is that the said Enquiry Officer failed to return the enquiry records and notice issued to said Enquiry Officer to return the enquiry records has not yielded any result. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 8. When the enquiry records are not returned by the earlier Enquiry Officer, the respondent-BDA resorted to issue one more Article of Charges dated 30.05.2024 impugned herein. 9. It is settled position of law that the enquiry would conclude or come to an end when the final order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority taking note of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In the instant case, the enquiry is not completed, in that Enquiry Officer appointed earlier has not submitted his report and no final order is passed by the respondent-BDA/Disciplinary Authority. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case in not returning the enquiry records by the previous Enquiry Officer, the respondent-BDA is justified in issuing fresh Article of Charges dated 30.05.2024. The decision on which, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance would have no application to the facts of the present case. In KARUNAGARAN case (supra), the Court proceeded on the basis that in the second charge memo, there was no - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 reason indicating the circumstance under which, the second Article of Charges was issued. In the instant case, the respondent has made it clear that the previous Enquiry Officer has not returned the enquiry records which prompted the respondent-BDA to issue fresh charge memo dated 30.05.2024. The charge against the petitioner is very serious in nature. In that, SSLC marks cards produced are not genuine and fabricate one. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v/s KUNISETTY SATHYANARAYANA reported in AIR 2007 SC 906 while considering the issue with regard to challenge to Article of Charges/Charge Memo, at paragraphs 17 and 18 it is held as follows: “17. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge against the respondent had already been enquired into earlier and he had been exonerated of the charge in an earlier proceeding. Hence, he contended that the impugned charge memo would amount to double jeopardy and was therefore illegal. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Lt. Governor, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 Delhi v. HC Narinder Singh [(2004) 13 SCC 342 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 876] . 18. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that if the charge which has been levelled under the memo dated 23-12-2003 had earlier been enquired into in a regular enquiry by a competent authority, and if the respondent had been exonerated on that very charge, a second enquiry would not be maintainable. However, in the present case, we are of the opinion that the charges levelled against the respondent under the charge memo dated 23-12-2003, had not been enquired into by any authority and he had not been exonerated on those charges. Hence we are of the opinion that it is not a case of double jeopardy.” (emphasis supplied) From a perusal of the above portion of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that when the enquiry is not completed and when the final order is not passed in the enquiry, the second charge memo could be issued. In other words, when the matter is not enquired into and when the petitioner is not exonerated of the charges, it would be open for the Disciplinary Authority to proceed against the said delinquent official by issuing fresh charge - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8911 WP No. 23369 of 2024 memo, that too, in the circumstances like that of the present one. Thus, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. The respondent-BDA shall conclude the enquiry within four months from today. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the respondent as well as the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry early. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms