M V THIMMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges Annexure-A order dated 2-6-2008 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 2576/2008 which was filed by the petitioner himself. As per the said order dated 2-6-2008, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents in the application, but refused to grant any interim order observing that the Tribunal was of the view that it was not a case where the applicant was entitled for an ex parte interim order sought for by him in the application without notice to the respondents. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant an ex parte interim order, the applicant in Application No. 256/2008 has filed this writ petition.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the materials placed on record, we felt that since the writ petition is filed against an order refusing to pass an ex parte interim order and since the prayer for interim order will come again before the Tribunal, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the applicant in Application No. 2576/2008 had established a strong prima facie case and hence the Tribunal ought to have granted an ex parte interim order. Learned counsel also contended that notwithstanding the fact that the impugned order is an interim order, this court can entertain the writ petition and pass an interim order in favour of the petitioner if the petitioner is able to establish that he had a strong prima facie case before the Tribunal. Therefore, we allowed the learned Senior counsel to argue the matter in detail and we have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel.

(3.) THE petitioner is a Karnataka Administrative Service Officer and in the cadre of Joint director of Social Welfare. While he was working as Managing Director of Karnataka state Women Development Corporation, he submitted Annexure-A1 application dated 4-2-2008 seeking permission to voluntarily retire from service under Rule 285 of the karnataka Civil Services Rules. The reason stated in the application dated 4-2-2008 is that he was not able to discharge his official duties due to domestic problems. There was no immediate response to the said application from the Government. Hence he submitted another letter dated 8-4-2008 reiterating his request for permission to take voluntary retirement. In the letter dated 8-4-2008, he requested that orders may be issued permitting voluntary retirement with effect from 10-4-2008. But strangely in his letter dated 9-4-2008, the petitioner stated that he had got a ticket from Bharatiya Janata Party to contest in the next Assembly election and that the list of candidates would be announced on 10-4-2008 and hence orders may be issued permitting voluntary retirement with effect from 10-4-2008 enabling him to contest in the next assembly election. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a letter dated 9-4-2008 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Women and child Development Department, Government of Karnataka, stating that he had requested for permission for voluntary retirement, assuming that Bharatiya Janata party would issue a ticket to him to contest in the Assembly election, but unfortunately ticket was not issued to him as announced on 10-4-2008; that orders have not been issued accepting his request for voluntary retirement and that he was withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement, since the Accountant General had not issued clearance certificate (i. e. No. Due Certificate ). Though the said letter carries the date '9-4-2008' and also carries an office seal, vide annexure-A3 order dated 27-5-2008, the government granted permission to the petitioner to retire from service voluntarily with effect from 10-4-2008 under Rule 285 (1) (a)of Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Challenging the said order dated 27-5-2008, the petitioner filed Application No. 2576/2008 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.