Dr. N.K. Palakshappa vs Secretary To Government on 17 December, 1984

Karnataka High Court
Dr. N.K. Palakshappa vs Secretary To Government on 17 December, 1984
Equivalent citations: ILR 1985 KAR 3477
Author: C Urs
Bench: C Urs


Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9-11-1983 passed by the Respondent-State of Karnataka dismissing him from service. An order of dismissal was passed earlier after a departmental enquiry on the charge that the petitioner had demanded and received bribe from one Mahabaleswaraiah and therefore acted in a manner unbecoming a Government Official and this Court remanded the matter due to some irregularities in the enquiry. After the remand, the impugned order is passed. It is contended for the petitioner that the present order is also vitiated for the following reasons :–

(i) That there was no offence committed as the petitioner received money from Mahabaleswaraiah in order to supply the Silver Alloy for filling-up the cavity in his tooth as there was no stock
to Silver Alloy available in the Government Hospital;

(ii) that the points made-out by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice have not been considered in the final order passed disclosing lack of application of mind;

(iii) that the order should be set aside because it could not have been passed before an order of reinstatement in office was made as directed by this Court in W.P. 577 of 1983; and

(iv) in the absence of a clear definition of what is “unbecoming conduct of a Government servant” in the : Rules, mere receipt of the value of the goods supplied can-not be considered to be a misconduct.

2. In fact, none of the grounds urged should be heard in this second round of litigation, as, this Court in the earlier Writ Petition had found fault with the final order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal from the stage at which the fault had occurred in the procedure. However, none of the grounds urged are tenable. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution will not re-appreciate the evidence on record nor overlook the fact that it is a trap case arranged by the Vigilance Commission and the petitioner was caught red-handed receiving money from Mahabaleswaraiah for supplying Silver Alloy to fill the cavity in his tooth, which the Government doctor was not expected to do. As a Dental Surgeon in a Government hospital, he was supposed to utilise the Government stock and if there was no stock, he must have left it to the patient to secure the metal alloy. To have a financial transaction with the patient is not expected of the Government servant. In that circumstance, the receipt of money has been held to be receipt of bribe as the same had been demanded 3 or 4 days earlier.

4. Similarly, there is no substance in the allegation that his reply had not been considered by the Government before passing the impugned order. There is no reference to the points made out in the reply. There is an assertion in the impugned order that his reply had been perused and found not tenable. That is more than enough consideration. What is required is application of mind to the explanation
submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice.

4. Similarly, the ground that the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition had not been followed before the dismissal order, is not well founded. The period between the earlier dismissal order and the setting aside of the same by this Court can be treated as on duty even at the time of passing the final order as that relief is a consequential relief that can be granted at the time of final orders. I, therefore do not see any violation of the provisions contained in Rule 100 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules.

5. I must observe that the argument that conduct of receiving monetary benefit for discharging official duties is not an action defined as “conduct unbecoming of a Govern-ment servant”, is also not well taken. Government dental surgery, wherever it is functioning, is meant for those who suffer dental pains, who are entitled to receive free treatment from Government dispensaries. If the Government servant does it, he acts in a manner which is not the conduct
becomeing a Government servant. Absence of definition in any Rule will not absolve such conduct being rendered conduct unbecoming a Government servant.

6. In the result, there is no merit in this Petition and therefore it is rejected.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information