Writ Petition No. 26176 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23687 WP No. 26176 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26176 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: R KUMAR S/O LATE G RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PRESENT ADDRESS R/AT NO. 62, 3RD CROSS NAGAWARA VAYALIKAVAL HBCS LAYOUT, NEAR ARABIC COLLEGE BENGALURU – 560045. AS PER CASTE CERTIFICATE R/AT NO. 28, NETHRAVATHI NILAYA 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN PRAKASH NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560021. (BY SRI.P PRITHVI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. 2. DEPARTMENT OF BENGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23687 WP No. 26176 of 2024 HC-KAR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560020. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.B J ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2: SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-H DATED: 11.09.2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ, order or direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23687 WP No. 26176 of 2024 HC-KAR given by the petitioner in Annexure-H dated 11.09.2024.” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Second Division Assistant in the BDA in the year 1992. Thereafter, he was promoted as First Division Assistant and later as Superintendent in the year 2013. The petitioner is eligible to be promoted as Tahasildar. His case has been short-listed and placed before the DPC on 01.01.2024. Since there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner, his name has been kept in a sealed cover. Since the petitioner’s case has not been considered for promotion, he submitted a representation dated 11.09.2024 vide Annexure-H. Since the same is not considered, he is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on the date the DPC was holding, there was no charge sheet filed against the petitioner. In the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23687 WP No. 26176 of 2024 HC-KAR departmental enquiry, charge memo has been issued subsequent to DPC held on 01.01.2024. Thereafter, he has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry. In so far as the criminal case is concerned, even as on today, no charge sheet has been filed. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. DOLY LOYI reported in (2024) SCC Online 4834. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner. The FIR has been registered on 11.09.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 167, 177, 182, 409, 465, 468, 470, 471, 473, 420 and 34 of IPC. There was a serious allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, his case was not considered for promotion. Hence, he sought for
Decision
dismissal of the writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23687 WP No. 26176 of 2024 HC-KAR 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 6. The case of the petitioner is that his case has been short-listed for promotion to the post of Tahasildar. Since there is a criminal case pending against him, as per FIR - Annexure-A, his case has been kept under sealed cover in the DPC held on 01.01.2024. Even as on the date the DPC was held, i.e.,. on 01.01.2024, no charge memo has been issued or charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case. The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. K.V.JANKIRAMAN AND OTHERS reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 held as follows: “16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23687 WP No. 26176 of 2024 HC-KAR it can be said that the departmental proceedings/ criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge- sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge- memo/chargesheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23687 WP No. 26176 of 2024 HC-KAR authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2)……….. (3)……….. (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before.” 7. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of, directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.09.2024 vide Annexure-H, considering the judgment of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23687 WP No. 26176 of 2024 HC-KAR Apex Court in the case of JANAKIRAMAN (supra), as expeditiously as possible, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 55