1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JULY, 2012,

: PRESENT :

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA

Writ Petition No. 5840 of 2012 (S-KAT)

Between:

Sri. T.Peera Naik, S/o. Sri. Thirka Naik, Aged about 39 years, Ex-Civil Police Constable, R/o. Kunchurkere Tanda, Kunchur Post, Harappanahalli Taluk, District. ...Petitioner

(By Sri. N.R.Naik for N.R.Naik & Associates, Advocate)

And :

1. The Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Davanagere.

2. The Superintendent of Police, , Davanagere. ... Respondents. 2

This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of , praying to quash the order passed by Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.8142/2001 dated 28/07/2011 vide Annexure-C and to quash and set aside the order of dismissal passed by R2 dated 20/07/2000 vide Annexure-A3 and confirm the appellate order dated 16/03/2001 in Appeal No.30/2000-01 by the R1 produced along with the application No.8142/2002 and allow the same.

This W.P. coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, N.K.PATIL J ., made the following: :O R D E R:

The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 28.7.2011 passed by Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal in Application No.8142/2001 vide Annexure-C, has presented this petition. Further, petitioner has sought to set aside the order of dismissal passed by 2 nd respondent dated 20.7.2000 vide

Annexure-A3 and confirm the appellate order dated

16.3.2011 in Appeal No.30/2000-01 by the first respondent and allow the same, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has been appointed as Civil Constable in the year 1994 at 3

District. Subsequently, after the formation of new

District of Davanagere, he opted to work at Davanagere

District and he is discharging his duties with utmost honest y and integrity without any adverse remarks. While he was working at Halavagalu Police Station, the articles of charges came to be served on him, which reads thus:

“ DgÉÆöÃ¥À:-

1. ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À CzÉñÀö«®èzÉ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ M¼À¥ÀlÖAvÉ PÀAqÀĨÁgÀzÉ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹ ºÀtPÁÌV vÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆöÃUÀ ¥Àr¹gÀÄwÛÃj. 2. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀƤUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀzÀAvÉ ZÁ®PÀ NA¥ÀæPÁ±ï ±ÀªÀÄðgÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÉÇöð¸ï PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ZÁPÀlÖ£ÀÄß «ÄÃj zËdð£Àå J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. 3. ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀgÁzÀ NA¥ÀæPÁ±ï ±ÀªÀÄð ºÁUÀÆ E£ÉÆösߧâ ZÁ®PÀ ºÀŸÉãÀ ©£ï ¸ÀÄPÀÄgï ¸Á¨ï ºÀwÛgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:8.7.99gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ zËdð£Àå¢AzÀ QvÀÄÛPÉÆöArgÀÄwÛÃj. 4. «£ÁPÁgÀt ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀjUÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊ¢ögÀÄwÛÃj. 5. vÉ®V G¥ÀoÁuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ NqÁqÀĪÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ZÁ®PÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ºÀtPÁÌV QgÀÄPÀļÀPÀÆqÀÄwÛÃj, EzÀjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è (1) ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝj vÀ£À (2) ¥ÉÇöð¸ï C¢üPÁgÀzÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆöÃUÀ (3) zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉ (4) ¥ÉÇöð¸ï E¯ÁSÉUÉ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀAvÉ PÁAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj JAzÀÄ DgÉÆöÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀ۪ɔ.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, after the receipt of Articles of Charges, he filed his detailed 4

objections denying all the charges levelled against him and stating that, as per the oral instructions issued by his higher ups, he and other persons who were posted for night duty to check the vehicles to prevent robberies and dacoitees in highways and he did not demand any amount much less the amount mentioned in the charge-sheet. Not satisfying with the reply filed by him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by appointing an

Enquiry Officer, who in turn, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and after considering the stand taken by him in his objections, has submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his reply and without appreciating the points raised by the petitioner in his reply, the

Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal on 20.7.2000 dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, 5

petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority, which in turn, after going through the materials available on file and taking into consideration the magnitude of the charges levelled against him, the conduct of the petit ioner and his admission, has recorded a finding of fact, holding that the charge of burking the robbery case with malafied intention has been proved against him, since he himself has admitted that the case of robbery took place on 8.7.1999, that too, infront of Teligi Out post where he was on duty.

4. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by both the authorities, petitioner has filed an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, in

No.8142/2001, which had come up for consideration on

28 th July 2011. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the grounds urged in the application, after perusing the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, has dismissed 6

the said application by assigning valid reasons. Being aggrieved by the said order and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has presented this petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders passed by all the authorities.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. N.R.Naik is that, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority, which has been confirmed by the Appellate

Authority and the Administrative Tribunal is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. At no point of time, petitioner has snatched `300/- to

`400/- which was found in his possession which is contrary to the evidence on record. Further, he submitted that, petitioner has admitted that when 5 to 6 persons came in a group and made robbery on

8.7.1999 infront of Teligi Outpost, where he was on 7

duty, and he has not communicated the same to his higher authorities and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal is not justifiable and they ought to have imposed some reasonable punishment of withholding the increments taking into consideration his service.

Therefore, he submitted that the impugned orders passed by all the three authorities are liable to be set aside, granting the relief as sought by him in this petition.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the materials available on file, including the impugned order passed by Administrative Tribunal, we do not find any error of law, illegality, much less material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Further, it is significant to note that, all the three authorities have record ed the concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, going 8

through the charges levelled against him which are serious in nature. It is significant to note that, the petitioner being a Police constable, it was his duty to bring it to the notice of his superiors through wireless and

telephonic communications which were available in Teligi

Out post nor he has taken severe action for preventing the

robbery and caught hold the persons involved in the said

incident, as rightly pointed out by all the authorities. It is

not the case of the petitioner that, inspite of his efforts to

prevent robbery, it has taken place. In fact, the Disciplinary

Authority after going through the records, the charges

levelled against the petitioner has opined that malafide

intention has been proved. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner himself has admitted that the case of robbery

took place on 8.7.1999 infront of Teligi Out post where he

was on duty and the culprits from the lorry driver snatched

the records and the same were taken back from the culprits

and handed over to the lorry driver by him, but he has failed

to communicate the same to his higher authorities even

though wireless and telephonic communications were 9

available at Teligi Out post nor nabbed the culprits. This aspect of the matter has been rightly considered and appreciated by all the authorities and they have recorded the concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the authorities, interference by this Court exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India does not call for. Nor we find any good grounds as such made out by the petitioner for entertaining the reliefs sought in this petition.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

Ordered accordingly.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE tsn*