Karnataka high court upholds dismissal of civil servant convicted in assault case
G Nanjegowda
, a second-division assistant formerly employed at District Institute of Education and Training, Bengaluru Urban district.
Nanjegowda was convicted in 2011 for an assault committed in 2001 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a verdict upheld by the high court in 2016. Following his conviction, he was dismissed from service on Nov 18, 2023. After an unsuccessful appeal before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his petition on Oct 25, 2024, he approached HC seeking relief.
Nanjegowda argued that even Rule 14 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 does not provide for automatic dismissal from service when a civil servant is convicted in a criminal case. However, after reviewing the rule, a division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D Huddar noted that dismissal from service on grounds of conviction and sentence in a criminal case involving moral turpitude cannot be faulted, as Rule 14 of 1957 Rules is as clear as the waters of Ganga river.
"... A person convicted of a serious offence is not desirable in public service. The offence committed has no nexus to official duties or conditions of service, which is too poor a justification to retain the convict in public service. It goes without saying that if conviction in a criminal case is a bar to public appointment, ipso facto it is a ground for removal from service. An argument to the contrary would strike at the root of reason and logic," the bench added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
FIR finally registered against unidentified policemen in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Three days after the Supreme Court upheld the directive of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court — to register an FIR in the Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case — the Parbhani police finally registered an FIR late on Friday under BNS Section 103 (1) for punishment for murder against unidentified policemen of the New Mondha police station. The FIR follows eight months and several rounds of hearings in the Bombay high court and Supreme Court after the alleged custodial death of 35-year-old law student Suryawanshi. His mother, 60-year-old Vijayabai Suryawanshi, is the complainant in the case. In her complaint, Vijayabai said on the morning of Dec 15, 2024, she received a phone call informing her that Somnath had died of a heart attack, and she was told to go to Parbhani to collect the body. When she was near Parbhani, she was informed that the body had been shifted to the Aurangabad Govt Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). On the way, Vijayabai alleged that she was stopped by the Parbhani police and taken to the SP's office, where a senior officer told her, "We did not kill your son. He died of a heart attack. We will help you. We can offer police training to one of your sons. Take the body and go." Vijayabai said in her complaint that she refused the offer and proceeded to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, where a postmortem was conducted on her son's body. Social activists present at the hospital informed her that the report indicated that Somnath had died of injuries caused by the police assault. In the FIR, she alleged that her son was subjected to three days of continuous assault in the lockup at New Mondha police station, and this lead to his death. She alleged that the officers and constables of the New Mondha police station were responsible for her son's death. The Supreme Court's division bench, comprising Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in its order dated July 30, clarified that the Bombay HC's direction to register an FIR in the matter should be construed as a mandate to investigate the crime, not necessarily to name any specific officer unless their role is established. State govt on July 10 moved the Supreme Court against the HC order of July 4, but after three adjournments, the apex court upheld the HC's order to register an FIR. During this entire appeal period, there was no stay on the high court order that required the Parbhani police to register the FIR within a week, by July 11. On Dec 11, 2024, protests and a riot broke out in Parbhani over reports of an alleged desecration of a replica of the Indian Constitution. Somnath, a law student residing with his family in Pune and pursuing his studies at a college in Parbhani, was among the people arrested by the police in connection with the rioting case. After his initial custody remand, he was sent to jail in magisterial custody but succumbed on Dec 15, to injuries sustained in alleged police brutalities. His mother, Vijayabai Suryawanshi, filed a petition in the HC seeking registration of an FIR against the policemen responsible for the alleged brutality. On July 4, the high court, while observing in an interim order that there was "prima facie material" indicating "custodial brutality and violation of constitutional rights," directed the FIR to be registered at Mondha police station in Parbhani district within a week, by July 11. The FIR is based on a complaint application of Dec 18, 2024, by Vijayabai. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Rule of law must prevail': SC upholds Bombay HC order to vacate top 18 floors of Tardeo-tower without OC
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Bombay High Court order of last month that directed 'selfish' residents occupying the top 18 floors of a 34-storey tower in Tardeo, south Mumbai, having no Occupation Certificate (OC) to vacate their premises within two weeks. The HC had also raised concerns over no fire NOC to the entire high-rise and said that Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation was free to take any action under notices issued by it as per law in case the residents fail to vacate the premises. The HC had clarified that members residing on 17 to 34 floors 'would be entitled to occupy the tenements, only after OC is granted.' Dismissing the special leave petition (SLP) filed by Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society challenging the HC order, the SC bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 1 appreciated 'courage and conviction exhibited by the High Court in taking stern steps against such unauthorised constructions.' 'Sympathy towards the occupiers of such flats on the ground of hardship and difficulties at the end of the court would be thoroughly misplaced. At the end of the day, the rule of law must prevail,' the SC in its order noted. A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor of the Bombay HC on July 15 passed the order. The matter pertained to the high-rise occupied by 50 flatbuyers out of a total 62 flats. The bench had said that it will hear issues pertaining to the first to 16 floors on the next date of hearing. The HC had said that the residents of the tower situated at a prime locality in south Mumbai indulged in 'brazen illegalities' for years and were least bothered about their own and others' lives. 'Such an approach which is wholly contrary to law, cannot be countenanced, in fact, it would set an example to perpetuate illegalities. It needs to be deprecated,' the HC said. The Justice Kulkarni-led bench had rejected a request by the society to stay operation of the order citing a SC order in Campa Cola case. Aggrieved by the same, the society approached the SC, which perused material on record and refused to interfere with 'a very well-considered, bold and lucid judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court' and appreciated concerns expressed by HC. The SC bench led by Justice Pardiwala said that if the petitioners wanted some time to vacate the premises, they may go back to the HC and make a request, and the HC shall ensure that all its directions are 'scrupulously complied with'. 'Necessary legal action shall also be taken against the wrongdoers and erring officials if any. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed,' the SC held.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
SC upholds Bombay high court order to vacate unauthorized 18 floors of Tardeo tower
Mumbai: The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court order and declined to intervene against the well-reasoned ruling, which directed "selfish" residents of the top 18 floors of a 34-storey tower in Tardeo, south Mumbai, that lack an Occupancy Certificate (OC), to vacate their premises in two week. The HC had clarified that such members would be entitled to occupy the flats only after the OC is granted. HC had also stated that if they fail to vacate their premises, BMC can initiate action on the notices issued long back. Aggrieved residents rushed to the SC. The SC bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on Friday dismissed a special leave petition filed by Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society seeking to challenge the HC judgment. The SC judges said, "We are of the view that we should not interfere with a very well-considered, bold, and lucid judgment delivered by the HC." On July 15, Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor of the HC had also observed the lack of a Fire NOC for the entire high-rise, but stayed any civic demolition action for the first 16 floors which has the OC, and adjourned the fire NOC issue of the first 16 floors for hearing by two weeks. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gold Is Surging in 2025 — Smart Traders Are Already In IC Markets Learn More Undo You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai "We appreciate the concern expressed by the HC," Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan said, adding, "We also appreciate the courage and conviction exhibited by the HC in taking stern steps against such unauthorised constructions. Sympathy towards the occupiers of such flats on the ground of hardship and difficulties at the end of the court would be thoroughly misplaced. At the end of the day, the rule of law must prevail. " The SC, however, provided some relief to the residents, saying if they wanted time to vacate, they may approach the HC with such a request. The SC also directed that the HC shall "ensure that all its directions are scrupulously complied with. Necessary legal action shall also be taken against wrongdoers and erring officials if any." Before the HC, there was a batch of petitions. There were more than two categories of petitions, the HC said. There were petitions filed by purchasers/members of the Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society Limited, who intended to defend the illegal constructions under the garb of regularisation. There was also a writ petition filed by Sunil B. Jhaveri H.U.F., who assailed several illegalities, including lack of an OC for floors 17 to 34 and the lack of a Fire NOC, rendering the building illegal. The HC even expressed its reservations about people occupying floors 1 to 16, but had stayed BMC's hands in resorting to any demolition under its notices for illegal constructions and posted the issue of the first 16 floors for further hearing on July 29. The HC order noted that BMC had for years been attempting to take legal actions against these illegalities. "There being no fire NOC, no OC for floors 17 to 34 itself is glaring. It appears that the persons who are occupying the 34-storey building are least bothered about their own lives. If this be so, how can they be bothered about anybody else, in the event of any untoward incident of any nature taking place? Such an approach, which is wholly contrary to law, cannot be countenanced. In fact, it would set an example to perpetuate illegalities. It needs to be deprecated." Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
