T K VEERANGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these six cases were dismissed from service by the concerned Disciplinary Authorities after dispensing with the disciplinary Enquiry by the Governor. The petitioner in the first case was a Head Constable in the District of Tumkur, the petitioners in the next three cases were Police Constables in the City Armed Reserve Police at Bangalore, the petitioner in the 5th case was a Head Constable in the District of Coorg and the petitioner in the last case was a Police Constable in the District of Shimoga. As the facts in all these cases are similar and as the questions raised in these cases are also similar, with the consent of the parties, these writ petitions were heard together. Though counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in W. P. No. 19090 of 1979, which is taken as the leading case, the same has been adopted as the statement of objections in respect of all the cases. For the sake of convenience, we propose to advert to the facts in WP No. 19090 of 1979 as the facts in the other cases are also similar.

(2.) The Governor of Karnataka made an order on the 26th of November 1979 as per Ex. D dispensing in the interest of security of the State with the requirement of holding disciplinary enquiry against the petitioners. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur District Tumkur made an order as per Ex. E dated the 27th November, 1979 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. It is the order made by the Governor as per Ex. D and the order made by the Disciplinary Authority, the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur District, Tumkur as per Ex. E that are challenged in this writ petition. It is necessary to state, so far as the petitioners in the other writ petitions are concerned, that the order of the Governor dispensing with the enquiry is the common order made on the 26th of November, 1979. So far as the WP 19386, 19387 and 20448 of 1979 are concerned, the petitioners in those cases were dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner, City Armed Reserve Police, Bangalore by orders made on the 26th November, 1979 itself. So far as the petitioner in W. P. No. 20084 of 1979 is concerned, he has been dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Coorg by the order made on 27th of November, 1979. So far as the petitioner in WP No. 19773 of 1979 is concerned, he has been dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Shimoga by his order dated 27th of November, 1979. It is necessary to state at this stage that the orders of dismissal in all these cases are in identical terms.

(3.) The petitioners in all these cases have challenged the order of the Governor dispensing with the enquiry as also the respective orders of dismissal on various grounds. So far as the order of the Governor is concerned, the following contentions were urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners: (1) That the Governor has dispensed with the enquiry prescribed under Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Karnataka State Police Disciplinary Proceedings Amendment Rules, 1965 and not the enquiry contemplated by Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. It was therefore contended that the enquiry contemplated by Art. 311(2) of the Constitution ought to have been held before imposing the penalty on the petitioners; (2) that even though the enquiry contemplated by Rule 6 of the Rules has been dispensed with, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner having regard to the statutory obligation cast on the Disciplinary Authority by the last portion of Rule & of the Rules which requires the Disciplinary Authority to consider the circumstances of the case and to pass such orders thereon as he deems fit. (3) That the Governor has not Applied his mind to the relevant facts before making the impugned order dispensing with the enquiry. (4) In order to appreciate the first two contentions, it is necessary to extract the order of the Governor dispensing with the enquiry. It is as follows: - "Whereas it is reported that the Police Officials named below: - (1) to (6) xx xx (7) Sri Veerangaiah, H. Tumkur District. have been indulging in certain objectionable and illegal activities for which disciplinary action have been proposed to be taken; (2) And whereas after due inquiries have been caused to be made, it has also been reported that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an enquiry in accordance with the Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka State Police (D. P.) Rules, 1965; (3) And where as the Governor of Karnataka is satisfied that in the circumstances stated above and in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to follow the procedure prescribed in the said Rule 6; (4) Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9 (iii) of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 read with Art. 311 (2) proviso (C) of the Constitution, the Governor of Karnataka hereby dispenses, in the interest of the security of the State, with the requirement of holding an enquiry in accordance with the said Rule 6 for taking disciplinary action against the said policemen."