IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18'1"" DAY OF OCTOBER,
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE v.G.SAR.HAHVI-Tiii . V
AND
THE HONBLE MRS.»JUST1'CE BA,V. V
WRIT PETITION N0. I'E9}I5 OF 20m ISKAT)
BEIVVEEN
1.
I {I§YISMT...SHEELA KRISHNA, AGA.,)
'AI§ID*
THE DIRECTOR,-1 V .
DEPARTMENTIIGF HEALTH AND' 'FAMILY
WELFARE.
ANA'NDA*'RAo"cIRcLE._
BANC_5ALOF<,E--55jQ 009 . '
§:?='1"A,'_1;E2I OF_ KAR\fATAKA,
REIvREsE:I\ITEDI*3YV._ITS SECRETARY,
' DEPARTMENTGF HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELF.ARE_ SERVICES,
5 ~ _ VIDHANASOUDHA,
' i V' BANGALQ.RE+56O 001.
.. PETITIONERS
DR.4'Ié1IT§'V.aEAI.AKRISHNA,
AGED' ABOUT 58 YEARS,
., S/'CILATE H.I<.THAIvIIvIAIAI~I,
* _wOR;<II\IG AS MEDICAL OFFICER,
\_
\
MATTA NAVILA,
CI-LANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SR1 BB. BAJENTRI, ADV..}
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES .226
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO..CAI,L–I1éOR
RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA.’ AD;V[IS’l”RATI”a{E I
TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.5:371/_f38«IETl_fC’1.’,” ‘-
THIS WP COMING ON _FOR’I>IiELIMINA:RY’ IIEIIRINO
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J TH INGZ9
The State the Order (it.
23.1.2009 patggsed Administrative
Tribunal afsv “T for short] in
App1i.;(;atIOI9iA’ filed this Writ Petition.
‘ “2… u’1″h.e_ Te1e\I’;1I1t facts of the Case are that during
respondent when he was working as
in the Primary Health Centre, Matta
Netvila’-I:i r1’Channarayapatna taluk, was issued a Charge
‘Iiiemevtttalleging that Ceztain aliowaéaces in respect Of
family planning operation not being paid to the
beneficiaries and also other charges such as maternity
allowances not being paid properly and
was working as a medical officer he ha_d..notvdilsbu1’se’d.V
allowance to 17 persons W]’10:;bAha:V”4€p’A
planning surgery. An enquiry wals.__initiat.e’d tlregtv
respondents and one Guriich_ann–abasappa;. The
enquiry officer conclude-:1 that;_th”e–..charge that maternity
allowance had A not been._ paid’ ” Sorekayipurada
Bhagramrnal-I 11:?’ been proved.
Thereafter”a..sinoW5’cau’se:’ notice Wasi issued to the
respondent V –andf~._ll'”subsequently punishment of
withholding’ _five,..’-annual increments with cumulative
was “in1poseVd;””With regard to enquiry held against
.’_Guruech’aniiabasappa punishment of censure was
in1p.ose_d.~ respondent herein being aggrieved by the
imposition of punishment, challenged the same
before the Tribunai. The Tribunal on consideration of
5?
W
the rival contentions, concluded that the enquiry had
not been conducted in accordance with law and that the
evidence on the basis of which the charges were
have been proved was only hearsay evidence
accordingly, set aside the punishrnent it ‘
the increments withheld be releas:e_ldt’to
and his pay shall be re~fi§{e_rj”‘within thi’r3e; V
the date of the order… ..BeinVg”aé’grileved theslaid order
and the direction, the _a_Sta.t.e*lihasltprefehrred this Writ
Petition.
_ .l the learned AGA and also the
learned tor respondent.
l’itV_:isV.contenlded on behalf of the petitioners
igpreliniinarylllenquiry had been conducted by the
Officer on the basis of the statement
reco__rdeci~in.~’ the said enquiry, disciplinary proceedings
were initiated and that there was sufficient material on
record for imposition of the penalty, but the Tribunal
has failed to appreciate this aspect of
Therefore, she contends that the order..of,.A4_theribunai.
has to be set aside and the pun_ishm.ent.’iniposed
be confirmed in this Writ Petitioni’
5. Per contra«,_.’v1:i’earifi1ec:ip’counsel appearing for the
respondent su,pporting’v»t1f1eVorderifdvof Tribunal has
submitted _en_tire_«– was based on
insuff”1ci’en’t » V on hearsay evidence.
Therefc-re,«.the~ justified in setting aside the
punvishment andV’.order”‘c1oes not call for any interference
Petition. He further submitted that the
ready to face any fresh enquiry, if
initiated~hy..-the Authorities concerned.
NV/’
6. Having heard the learned counsel on both
sides and on perusal of the material on recordgit is
noticed that the charges leveled against
were with regard to the non Mpaymeni.”v–o:f~..
allowance to one Smt. Sorekayipur:ad.é; and
non payment of family plazining allovvancelvtofuji~7,pe.rsons. L’
and other incidental chargesly-..ifihoughl preliminary
enquiry was conductedand. recorded in
the disciplinarye_nquiry’iriitia’Led_on’. lhlasis of the said
charges, ll not received the
amouvntslwfivigyv on the other hand, the
Officelrfivlrhol the preliminary enquiry
stated that-~o_n the basis” of the statements made to him
letitingllliriwthe evidence. The Tribunal rightly
the said evidence of the Officer was only
hearsay ~e_vi.s:ilence and was not sufficient to come to the
conclusion either that the amount was not paid to Smt.
Sorelkayipurada Bhagyamma or to other seventeen
is.
W/_ .//7
beneficiaries. In fact, none of the beneficiaries were
examined so as to prove that they have not received the
said amounts. In the circumstances, the ‘Ifri’b11u11al5i_1a~s
rightly held that the finding arrived? at
authority and the punishniient-..ifp.in’ipyo’sed-
disciplinary authority were u_nsus’t.ainable'”aridguashed:*
the same. We are in confiriniiy with the reasoning
given by the Tribu~nial_A ‘i_na:jsm’ucih_'”~as the requisite
material evidence of the’bene’ficiarie_s more not let in and
hence, based hearsay evid;e_nce,m”punishment could
not have Hovvever, since the Tribunal
has merely qL1.aslje.d”th’e«.order of punishment without
anypyfurther’direction; deem it proper, while affirming
‘order the ribunal to reserve liberty to the State
s…Aut’hoIii’ti.esVhltoiinitiate fresh enquiry in accordance with
law..__
ifliccordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. Order of
Disciplinary Authority is set aside and the order of
/”E
)/.a/”‘
the Tribunai is modified to the extent of reserving liberty
to the concerned authorities to initiate fresh enquiry, -if
so advised.
.. . 'E 'V . ENS