U. Sharanappa vs The Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and Ranga Rao

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by the first respondent in Case No. 8308/2010. The said order is impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner was working as a Police Inspector at Tarikere Police Station, Chickmagalur District, from the year 2009. Thereafter he has been posted in different places. While he was serving in Tarikere Police Station, one Khaleel, S/o. Abdul Lathif had lodged a complaint against the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. According to the petitioner, the said compliant was registered in Crime No. 38/2010 and investigation was conducted in that regard as per law. The second respondent however had approached the Human Rights Commission-first respondent stating that the human right of the second respondent has been violated. The same was registered in Case No. 8308/2010. The first respondent by its order dated 25.07.2012 has arrived at the conclusion that the human right of the second respondent has been violated by the petitioner and in that regard, has directed payment of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the second respondent and it has been left open to the Government to recover the same from the petitioner. Further, the first respondent has also recommended that the disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner. It is in that regard, the petitioner is before this Court.

The second respondent has filed the objection statement and has sought to oppose the petition. The nature of the contentions put forth by the second respondent before the first respondent is sought to be reiterated and it is contended that the first respondent was justified in its conclusion and the order does not call for interference. Learned counsel for the second respondent has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of S.B. Chabbi Vs. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and Another, .

In the light of the above, before adverting to the present facts, even if the decision cited above is noticed, the position of law is no more res integra inasmuch as the first respondent would only make a recommendation to the Government and it would be thereafter for the Government to either accept the recommendation or to act in any other manner. If this aspect is kept in view, it is to be noticed that the Government in the instant case after accepting the recommendation, has already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which is pending and has not been proceeded further in view of the pendency of this petition and the interim order granted herein. Therefore, in such circumstance, when it is seen that the decision of the first respondent is only in the nature of recommendation, in the cited case also, this Court has not interfered. Similarly, the interference to the impugned order/recommendation made by the first respondent would not arise in the instant petition.

However, what is necessary to be noticed is the contention put forth by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that if ultimately the petitioner is exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, the recommendation made herein should not be held against the petitioner for his future prospects in service.

Having taken note of the said contention, it is necessary to be clarified that the recommendation which affects the petitioner presently is with regard to the leave granted to the Government to recover the sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner after paying the same to the second respondent. The other recommendation made by the first respondent is to hold the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. If the said recommendations are kept in view, the future action against the petitioner relating to his service will certainly depend on the result of the disciplinary proceedings that has already been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner in any event is prepared to go through the enquiry proceedings and face the same in accordance with law. In that view, it is made clear that if ultimately the petitioner is exonerated in the disciplinary enquiry, certainly the recommendation made by the first respondent would have spent itself inasmuch as the disciplinary proceedings would have been conducted against the petitioner and the result therein in any event would have to be implemented. Needless to mention that if there is exoneration, neither based on the recommendation nor any other action could be taken against the petitioner. In this regard, it is also to be clarified that since the first respondent has directed that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the second respondent and liberty has been reserved to the Government to recover the same from the petitioner, for the present, since the Government has accepted the recommendation and has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner shall at this point deposit the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with the third respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The third respondent through its competent officer shall disburse the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the second respondent after notifying the second respondent to receive the same. The result of the enquiry would also regulate the manner of refund or otherwise by the Government. In that regard, it is made clear that if the petitioner is found guilty in the said proceedings, the said amount paid by the petitioner would require no further consideration. However, if the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry, the State Government shall repay the amount to the petitioner in that regard.

With the said clarification, the petition stands disposed of.