HANUMANTHAPPA KRISHNAPPA MIKALI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, while working as Second division Surveyor in the Service of Government of Karnataka, was charge sheeted before the Special Judge, Belgaum, in Spl. C. C. No. 83/1996 under sections 7 and 13 (l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. As per his judgment/order dated 30. 12. 2005, the special Judge, Belgaum, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay,a fine of Rs. 600/ -. The judgment of the Special Judge has been challenged before the High court in Criminal Appeal No. 152/2006 and the High Court by its order 25. 1. 2006 has suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioner and has granted bail to the petitioner. In view of the conviction of the petitioner by a Criminal Court, the second respondent issued Annexure-A. 3' order dated 1. 9. 2006 dismissing him from service. Apparently, the second respondent has invoked Rule 14 (1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 for issuing Annexure-A. 3' order. The petitioner challenged Annexure-A. 3' order before the Karnataka administrative Tribunal by filing Application No. 6395/2006. However, as per Annexure-'b' order dated 12. 9. 2006, the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy of filing Appeal against Annexure-'a. 3' order. For taking such a view, the Tribunal relied on Section 20 (1) of the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the Order of the Tribunal, this Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) IT is not disputed that Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 provides for an Appeal against Annexure-'a. 3' order passed by the Second respondent. It is also not disputed that Section 20 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances admittedly, the petitioner filed Application No. 6395/2006 in the Karnataka administrative Tribunal without filing any Appeal provided under Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1957.

(3.) IN S. S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582, a constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: