SHARATH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for setting aside the order, dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application No. 7972/2011 vide Annexure-A, and order, dated 01.07.2016 in Review Application No. 144/2016 vide Annexure-B and quashing the order of penalty imposed on him on 27.06.2016 in departmental proceedings, in Order No. Sibbandi (2)DE/02/2011-12, O.B. No. 187/16-17 vide Annexure-L and such other reliefs.

(2.) The facts in brief are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Police Constable on 02.05.2007. On 17.03.2011 petitioner's wife made a complaint against him alleging physical and mental cruelty on her putting forth demand for dowry. Therefore, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As a result of this complaint being registered, the second respondent initiated enquiry under Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka State Police (DP) Rules, 1965. Second respondent appointed the third respondent as the enquiry officer. On 28.09.2011 the third respondent framed charges. Because of initiation of this enquiry against him, the petitioner approached Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing Application No. 7972/2011 seeking to quash the charge Memo dated 02.07.2011 issued by the third respondent. In this application, interim order staying the proceedings before the third respondent was not granted. When this application was pending, the petitioner and his wife entered into a compromise and they decided to live together. As a result, petition filed by wife for restitution of conjugal rights, M.C. No. 15/2012 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, ended in a compromise decree, as per Annexure-F. On 29.01.2016 the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissed the Application holding that there was no bar for holding departmental enquiry during the pendency of criminal proceedings. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 16110/2016 in this Court. But, in the writ petition, the petitioner was directed to move the Tribunal seeking review of the order based on subsequent developments, that too in view of the dispute between petitioner and his wife having been amicably settled. It was also observed in the order that in case the interim order was not granted by the Tribunal or review application was dismissed, the petitioner could approach this Court in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Review Application No. 144/2016 before the Tribunal by disclosing all the subsequent events as also the fact that C.C. No. 35/2012 initiated on a report made by the wife also ended in his acquittal. But the Tribunal on 01.07.2016 dismissed the Review Application holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. Since the Tribunal did not grant interim stay of all other proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry during the pendency of the review petition, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 10.06.2016 calling upon his reply as to why penalty should not be imposed on him based on the report of the Enquiry Authority. Though the petitioner submitted his reply stating that the matter was under consideration before the Tribunal, the second respondent passed an order on 27.06.2016 by imposing penalty of withholding one increment as per Annexure-L. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Government Advocate.