Hanumanthappa Krishnappa Mikali vs The State of Karnataka

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner while working as Second Division Surveyor in the Service of Government of Karnataka was charge sheeted before the Special Judge, Belgaum, in Spl.C.C. No. 83/1996 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per his judgment/order dated 30.12.2005, the Special Judge, Belgaum, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/-. The judgment of the Special Judge has been challenged before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 152/2006 and the High Court by its order 25.1.2006 has suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioner and has granted bail to the petitioner. In view of the conviction of the petitioner by a Criminal Court, the second respondent issued Annexure-''A.3'' order dated 1.9.2006 dismissing him from service. Apparently, the second respondent has invoked Rule 14(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 for issuing Annexure-''A.3'' order. The petitioner challenged Annexure-''A.3'' order before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing Application No. 6395/2006. However, as per Annexure-''B'' order dated 12.9.2006, the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy of filing Appeal against Annexune-''A.3'' order. For taking such a view, the Tribunal relied on Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

It is not disputed that Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 provides for an Appeal against Annexure-''A.3'' order passed by the second respondent It is also not disputed that Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. Admittedly, the petitioner filed Application No. 6395/2006 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal without filing any Appeal provided under Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

In S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , a Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

In several States the Conduct Rules for government servants require the administrative remedies to be exhausted before the disciplinary orders can be challenged in Court Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides:

(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.

The Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings do provide for an appeal against the orders of punishment imposed on public servants. Some Rules provide even a second appeal or a revision. The purport of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is to give effect to the Disciplinary Rules and the exhaustion of the remedies available thereunder is a condition precedent to maintaining of claims under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Administrative Tribunals have been set up for government servants of the Centre and several States have already set up such Tribunals under the Act for the employees of the respective States. The law is soon going to get crystallised on the line laid down u/s 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

In the light of the above mentioned decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the view taken by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is right and justified. Therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed.