MALINI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore dated 16th December 2009 in Application No. 1010/2009 dismissing her application and upholding the order of discharge. Petitioner was the applicant before the Tribunal. It is her case that she is a Master Degree holder in Psychology and specialized in Clinical Psychology from Bangalore University and also holds Ph.D degree. She also holds Post Graduate Diploma in System Management and Post Graduate Diploma in Psychology Counselling. In the year 1993, she joined the services at NIMHANS as a Senior Research Fellow to work under the Indo - US Project. While working in the said project, in order to conduct Narco analysis and Brain Mapping tests for various under-trials, suspects, who were involved in committing murders and other organized crimes, she was appointed as an Assistant Director of Forensic Psychology w.e.f. July 1999 for a period of one year on contract basis. Subsequently her services have been renewed every year without any break in the service. While she was so working on contract basis, during the year 2007, this Court while disposing W.P. No. 122/2005 made an observation in its order that "to facilitate the Government of Karnataka to absorb the services of the petitioner in the existing post of Assistant Director, against which, she was working on contract basis as she fulfils the essential qualifications and experience to hold the post. In the said proceedings, the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka filed an affidavit stating that she would be retrospectively absorbed in the said post. The Government framed Special Rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant Director of Forensic Psychology by issuing a notification calling upon the eligible candidates to fill up the notified posts. The said notification is dated 17-05-2007. The applicant applied for the said post as she had requisite qualifications. A Special Recruitment Committee for Selection to the post of Assistant Director of Forensic Psychology was constituted by the Government on 16-06-2007. Two eligible candidates had applied for the said posts. The said Committee conducted interview of eligible candidates to the said post. While scrutinizing the applications, the application of the other candidate came to be rejected at the initial stage as he did not possess the requisite qualification. The applicant was interviewed, each and every document submitted by her was verified and her name was recommended for the post of Assistant Director of Forensic Psychology. The Committee also recommended the State Government to invoke Rule 57 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules in public interest to sanction premature increment considering the length of service of the applicant rendered on contract basis to be counted for promotion and pension. The then DGP and IGP also supported the said recommendation. Accepting the recommendation of the Committee, by an order dated 30-06-2007, the applicant was appointed as Assistant Director of Forensic Sciences in the respondent-Department.

(2.) The second respondent, behind the back of the applicant conducted a suo-motu enquiry regarding her date of birth as well as her qualifications and without hearing her, he submitted a report that SSLC marks card produced by her is a tampered one. Further, while she was working in the 3rd respondent Department, she was also working in a private Nursing Home and sought for discharging her from services. On receipt of the said report, the then Home Minister ordered issue of notice to the petitioner to have her say in the matter. In the meanwhile, on the Floor of the Karnataka Legislative Council, there was a demand from the opposition leaders to discharge her from services. Yielding to the said pressure without holding any enquiry, her services came to be terminated. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred an application before the Tribunal contending that her termination is not a termination simpliciter as evident from the order of the Home Minister, it was on the ground of misconduct. The Tribunal after looking into the entire records which was summoned by them and after referring to the various Confidential Records, has set out the proceedings on the Floor of the Legislative Council and held that the opposition leaders have vehemently and strongly demanded for discharge of the applicant. It is not that nothing was known to the applicant. This has become a sensational issue and media people were day to day either telecasting or publishing the issue in television or newspapers. One can also take judicial note of that. The applicant could have taken this opportunity and opposed if she had any proof in her support, in proof of her date of birth. A glimpse of the entire proceedings show that there were heated exchange of arguments between the Members on the Floor of the Legislative Council. They adjourned the proceedings for 15 minutes...etc. At the end, a decision was taken. Then it is observed that the Tribunal feels a word of appreciation to our opposition leaders is necessary. They have taken up such a sensational matter on the Floor of the Legislative Council and tried to excavate the truth or otherwise of some of the erring officers. This shows that our leaders are alert and watching the working pattern of the State. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the discharge is warranted in the facts of the case and it is a discharge simpliciter and not stigmatic and therefore, a case for interfering in such order was not made out. Accordingly, the application came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) Prof. Raviverma Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends that, as is clear from the proceedings of the legislative council, when this question was raised on the floor, the Home Minister stated that they would take action against the petitioner and in that regard they have already issued notice. But the opposition leaders opposed the said move on the part of the Home Minister and as she was a probationer as on that date, even without issuing the notice and without holding any enquiry, she should be discharged from service. Yielding to the said threat, without enquiry, the impugned order discharging her from service is issued. Therefore, an order of discharge terminating her services came to be passed under pressure and there is no independent application of mind by the respondents. They have mechanically issued the said order yielding to the political pressure mounted on them in the legislature. He submits on that score alone, the order is liable to be set aside. Secondly, he contended it is undisputed that applicant was working on a contract basis for a period of seven long years. During that period, she was involved in unearthing a murder case successfully. Her services have been lauded not only by this Court but also by the High Court of Kerala apart from the various authorities. Her problem started only when on the opinion given by her, arrests were made in what is popularly known as "Abhaya Sisters murder case" at Kerala. It is thereafter, an attempt for her removal from the said post gained momentum. That the terms of the impugned order shows it is not a discharge simpliciter. Having regard to her expertise in the field, the fact that she was serving the Government for nine long years and her services were found useful by several authorities all over the country, it cannot be said that she was not suitable for the said post. The reason for her removal is her role in the aforesaid Abhaya Sisters murder case and the political pressure mounted on the floor of the legislative assembly. It is a motivation and foundation stone for her discharge from services. As is clearly set out by the Tribunal in its order, it was a sensational issue. The media people were telecasting the day to day issue in the television and in the newspapers. Therefore, the said incidence has a direct nexus for her removal notwithstanding the words used in the order of discharge, she was dismissed from service on the alleged misconduct. Therefore, it is not a discharge simpliciter as contended by the respondents and held by the Tribunal. He further contended her case did not fall under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (Probation Rules 1977) but fall under Rule 7. Therefore, the said impugned order requires to be set aside as the impugned order is stigmatic in nature.