K.S. Ravindra Gowda vs State

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.

Petitioner, in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No. 1, dismissing the petitioner from service and the endorsement dated 14.05.2014 (Annexure-E), whereby, his representation has been rejected. In the representation, the petitioner had prayed for modification of the punishment from dismissal to lesser punishment.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''the P.C. Act'') in Spl. CC. No. 07/2008. The judgment dated 03.05.2011 rendered by the Special Judge was then confirmed by this Court in Crl. A. No. 547/2011. Even the SLP (Crl) filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court came to be dismissed as rendered infructuous. This Court is informed that during the pendency of SLP, the Governor of Karnataka remitted the remaining part of sentence. Thus, it is clear that the order of conviction under the provisions of P.C. Act, attained finality.

It is in this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of dismissal dated 27.12.2011 was passed without following the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Rule 28-C of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short ''the Rules'') r/w. proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. R.P. Singh, .

I have perused the provisions contained in Rule 28-C and Rule 14 of the Rules. At the outset, I find, reliance placed on these Rules is misplaced. The question of consulting KPSC, in the case of petitioner, did not arise. His appointment was not made through the KPSC. Even the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the parties is also of no avail to the petitioner, in view of the peculiar facts of this case.

In the present case, the petitioner has been dismissed from service under Rule 8(viii) in view of his conviction for the offences punishable under the provisions of P.C. Act. Even the judgment in R.P. Singh (supra), is of no avail to the petitioner. In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the case arising from departmental enquiry.

It would be relevant to look into the provisions contained in rule 8(viii) with proviso and Explanation (1) of the Rules, which read thus:-

Nature of Penalties:- [One or more of the following penalties] for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, may be imposed on Government Servants, namely-

(i) xxxxxxxx

(ii) xxxxxxxx

(iii) xxxxxxxxxxxx

(iv) xxxxxxxxxx

(v) xxxxxxxxx

(vi) xxxxxxxx

(vii) xxxxxx

(viii) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment:

[Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the order of the Disciplinary Authority, no penalty other than those specified in clauses (vi) to (viii) shall be imposed for an established charge of corruption].

[Explanation 1.- For purposes of this proviso the expression "Corruption shall have the meaning assigned to the expression "Criminal misconduct by a public servant" in Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988)].

Bare perusal of the aforementioned Rule, would show that if the charge of corruption is established against the Government servant, the only punishment that can be imposed is of dismissal from service, as provided for in clause-8(viii) of Rule 8 of the Rules.

This position of law has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the course of arguments, he submitted that in view of the petitioner''s personal problems, it was possible for the Government to show indulgence to the petitioner and impose lesser punishment. In my opinion, such option was not open to the disciplinary authority in view of the provisions contained in clause (viii) of Rule 8 r/w. proviso and Explanation (1).

In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.