Smt. Usha R vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the Order dated 21.05.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (henceforth referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.1037/2021. By the aforesaid Order, the Tribunal refused to interfere with
3
the order impugned therein by which the respondent No.4 has repatriated the service of the petitioner to the borrowing department, namely the Department of Urban Development.
The Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, discloses that she was substantively employed in the Department of Finance. Her services were borrowed by the Department of Urban Development and later on she wad deputed as Accounts Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Controller of Finance (South) BBMP, Bangalore, she was sent on deputation for a period of two years with effect from 25.06.2020. 3. The petitioner claimed that certain contractors in the respondent No.4-Organization have violated the provisions of the Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948 and Employee’s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which were detected in the Audit Report in the year 2018-19. Consequently, a contractor by name of
4
Girish had threatened the petitioner and she filed a complaint with the police. Later, the said Girish also filed a complaint in Cr.No.174/2020. The incident alleged against the petitioner was enquired by the respondent No.4 and it was found that the complaint was false. Consequent thereto, the juri ictional police investigated the case and filed a B-Report dated 16.06.2020. 4. Close on the heels of this, another complaint was lodged by R.Lokesh against the petitioner on 18.01.2021, alleging that she demanded bribe for processing his bills. Upon such a complaint, the juri ictional police registered Cr.No.174/2020 and thereafter submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 384, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In terms of an inter departmental Order dated 09.07.2020, the petitioner was repatriated to her parent department and deputed to this Court. However, the aforesaid order was withdrawn by an Order dated 28.12.2020 and the petitioner continued as
5
Accounts Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Controller of Finance(South) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore. Later, after a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner as aforesaid, the respondent No.4 in terms of an Order dated 04.02.2021, returned the services of the petitioner to the borrowing department-Department of Urban Development. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.2247/2021 before this Court, challenging the charge sheet filed against her and this Court stayed further proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner therefore challenged the Order dated 04.02.2021 returning the services of the petitioner, by filing an application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1988. 5. The petitioner claimed before the Tribunal that her deputation was to be for a period of two years or until further orders to be issued by the respondent No.
The petitioner claimed that she was entitled to continue as Accounts Superintendent in the encadered post for a
6
period of two years i.e., upto June 2022, unless the Order of deputation by the borrowing department was cancelled or was recalled by the parent department after due consultation with the borrowing department. It was also claimed that since the charge sheet filed against the petitioner was stayed, the cause for returning the services of the petitioner, did not exist and therefore her services should be continued at the respondent No.4. 6. The respondent No.4 filed its statement of objections before the Tribunal and contended that the services of the petitioner was at the pleasure of the respondent No.4 and since allegations were made against her and a charge sheet was filed against her, the respondent No.4 in order to avoid embarrassment, returned her services to the borrowing department. The respondent No.4 contended that the petitioner ought to have maintained decorum in functioning and must have brought the allegations against the contractors, to the notice of her immediate superiors rather than filing a
7
complaint on her own and without consultation of her superiors. Therefore, the respondent No.4 was perforced to return the petitioner to the borrowing department.
The Tribunal considered the case of the petitioner and the respondent No.
The Tribunal noticed that the petitioner herself had filed a complaint which showed that there was animosity between the petitioner and a contractor named Mr.Girish. It noticed that the counter complaint lodged by Mr.Girish was looked into by the respondent No.4 and found that the allegations were baseless. It also noticed that the police had filed a B-Report in respect of the above complaint. The Tribunal was stayed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2247/2021 and therefore there is no justification in returning the service of the petitioner. He further argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in KUNAL NANDA (Supra) as that was a case where the petitioner sought absorption when the borrowing department repatriated the services. He contended that the facts are in the present case was entirely different as the petitioner did not seek absorption.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the filing of a charge sheet would indicate that there was a prima-facie case against the petitioner and therefore, continuing the petitioner in the very same post would militate against the interest of the respondent No.2 as well
10
as the respondent No.
Therefore, he contended that the petitioner who has no right to be continued in the post where she is deputed, cannot challenge the impugned order and seek her continuation in the same post.
We have given her anxious consideration over the arguments learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was an officer in the cadre of Superintendent in the State Accounts Department which came under the administrative control of the Finance Department. The services of the petitioner was borrowed by the Department of Urban Development (respondent No.2) which issued an order dated 09.03.2020 extending her period of deputation at the respondent No.4 for a period of two years from 25.06.2020 to 25.06.2022. In the meanwhile, during her stint as the Accounts Superintendent at the office of the respondent No.4, she and a few contractors sparred over official acts, which resulted in a case against the petitioner in Cr.No.174/2020 and a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable
11
under Sections 384, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, this Charge sheet is challenged before this Court in Crl.P.No.2247/2021 and this Court has stayed further proceedings in the case. A perusal of the complaint in Cr.No.174/2020 discloses that there were allegations against the petitioner that she demanded illegal gratification to process the bills for payment. Hence, the respondent No.4 felt it appropriate to return the services of the petitioner to the borrowing department, namely, the respondent No.2 herein. The fact that a charge sheet is filed against the petitioner is not in dispute. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.4 has felt that the services of the petitioner is not required by it and thus returned the services of the petitioner. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order, as she has no lien over the post of Accounts Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Controller of Finance (South) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore. She cannot claim that her services should be continued in the said post. If there was a charge sheet against her in
12
respect of official acts, the respondent no.4 was thoroughly justified in returning her services.
Since the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner has no right to seek continuation in any post where she is deputed, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE
rv
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.