Karnataka high court upholds dismissal of civil servant convicted in assault case
Bengaluru: The high court reaffirmed a strong stance on the integrity expected of public servants, declaring that a person convicted of a serious offence is not fit to continue in public service. This observation came while dismissing a petition filed by
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
Maharashtra has big dams, but we face water imbalance: CM
Nagpur: Maharashtra's deep regional water disparities persist despite hosting some of India's largest irrigation projects, said chief minister Devendra Fadnavis at the Vidarbha Pani Parishad. "Big dams alone can't resolve the issue. The real solution lies in small, sustainable conservation structures," he stated, advocating for localised water planning. He highlighted the success of Jalyukt Shivar under the Baliraja Project, which ensured convergence of departments under district collectors, boosting participation and impact. Fadnavis also backed the Centre's move to suspend the Indus Water Treaty, calling it the "deadliest blow" to Pakistan and a precursor to "Operation Sindoor." He warned that water wars are no longer distant possibilities, urging wise use and conservation amid mounting national and global water stress. "Water has been at the heart of civilisations — from the Saraswati to Sindhu to African rivers," said Fadnavis, adding that in modern times, unchecked use, especially in agriculture, has become a major concern. "Whenever water availability rises, we shift to cash crops and overuse it. We must act wisely in usage and conservation." Speakaing about Jalyukt Shivar, he said, "Unlike earlier fragmented schemes split across 14 departments, this one was coordinated under district collectors. All officials, irrespective of departments, reported directly to the collector. This streamlined planning, execution, and participation." With Rs700 crore raised through public contribution, the scheme benefited over 20,000 villages, notably in Marathwada, improving groundwater levels. A 2018 HC petition led to an expert panel, which verified the scheme's success. In 2020, the Centre's Groundwater Report confirmed Maharashtra as the only state with consecutive annual water level rises. "Even with just 75% rainfall, we faced no scarcity," he said. Among key projects, Fadnavis cited the Wainganga-Nalganga river-linking initiative — a 500km project spanning seven districts in Vidarbha — aimed at redirecting surplus water toward the Godavari basin. Similar efforts include five other river-linking schemes and the Tapi Water Recharge Project, set to shift 35 TMC water to saline-affected areas. Since 2014, the state has completed 90 irrigation projects, including the near-completion Gosikhurd Dam. Post-2017, it has shifted to piped distribution systems, saving 8 TMC of water and boosting efficiency. Fadnavis also praised Israel's water practices, such as micronutrient delivery and precision irrigation, as models being adopted in Maharashtra. He flagged river and nullah pollution, attributing 90% of it to untreated domestic waste. "Industries get blamed, but citizens are major contributors," he said, urging better sewage systems in cities like Nagpur, Pune, and Mumbai. Warning of rising inter-district water conflicts like Nashik vs Marathwada, Fadnavis stressed that solutions, not demands, are the way forward. Earlier, Nagpur University's acting vice-chancellor Madhavi Khode Chaware inaugurated the Wainganga Water Exhibition at Vanamati. Over 150 students, scholars, and activists participated, showcasing posters, research papers, and models focused on water conservation and sustainability. (Inputs by Krisha Panchmatia) * * * * **************** THE WATER STORY * Rs 700 crore raised by villagers under Jalyukt Shivar Yojana 20,000 villages benefited under Jalyukt Shivar 90 irrigation projects completed since 2014 8 TMC water saved through efficient usage methods 3%: Water absorption rate in Maharashtra, (compared to 22% in Uttar Pradesh) 56 TMC water from Konkan redirected to Godavari 35 TMC water under Tapi Water recharge Project 500 km new river being created under Wainganga–Nalganga river linking
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Water sharing row: HC dismisses Punjab's May 14 plea over release of more water to Haryana
The court had disposed of the petition on May 26 and the detailed order was released on June 7 The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a petition from the Punjab government seeking modification of the May 6 order that allowed the release of an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana by Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB). The Punjab government had filed the petition on May 14 arguing that direction was an outcome of concealment of material facts by the BBMB, Haryana and the Centre. 'This court disposed of the matter (on May 6) in the backdrop of emergent situation, which had arisen and any delay in resolving the dispute would have caused irreparable damage to millions of residents of different states, including Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. With this urgency in mind, this court finally disposed of the matter... (on May 6),' the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel said, dismissing the plea from Punjab. The petition was disposed of on May 26, and the order was released on June 7 evening. The controversy erupted on April 28 when the Haryana government's demand for additional water from the Bhakra Dam was approved by the BBMB despite opposition from Punjab. The Punjab government refused to accept the decision and deployed police at Nangal dam, 13km downstream from Bhakra, to stop the additional water release. The BBMB was established by the Union power ministry in 1966 under Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and regulates water distribution from Bhakra, Nangal, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams between Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Rajasthan. The Union home ministry stepped in on May 2 and directed that additional water be released to Haryana. However, the BBMB said that the order could not be complied with as Punjab Police prevented board officials from discharging their duties. The BBMB approached the high court on May 5, seeking the court's intervention and demanding that Punjab Police be withdrawn from BBMB. It was during these proceedings, on May 6, the high court ordered that the May 2 decision of the Union home secretary be implemented, whereby Haryana was to get additional water. However, Punjab did not allow implementation of the May 6 order claiming that 'not a drop could be spared'. HC reiterated its order on May 9 and also sought names of Punjab officials who did not allow the implementation of the HC order. However, it was also not implemented. Finally, on May 14, Punjab filed a plea seeking recall of the May 6 order, which has been dismissed by the HC now. Lawyers said, practically, this decision has 'no impact on the ground' as a new water-sharing cycle has started from May 21. The high court said that on May 29, Haryana wrote a letter to the Centre seeking its intervention in the backdrop of Punjab's opposition. But the letter merely seeks implementation of the May 28 resolution of BBMB allowing more water to Haryana. The court said that this letter can't be treated as a reference, which, as per rule 7 of the BBMB Act, a dissenting state can raise in the event of a dispute. 'This letter does not fall within the realm of 'material fact' (which Punjab was claiming) non-disclosure of which is inconsequential,' the court said. The court also said that Punjab has argued that since the May 29 'reference' was pending with the Centre, BBMB was not competent to decide the issue of water sharing. However, this issue does not arise as the May 29 letter or 'reference' of the Haryana government to the Centre was not made under Rule 7 of the BBMB Act. 'More so, Punjab is not left remediless, since it can always make a reference to Central government in terms of Rule 7,' the court said adding that Punjab was given liberty to approach Centre as per rules. But has not been availed by the state. It further added that with regard to Punjab's argument that the Union home secretary was not competent to take the May 2 decision on the issue and since Haryana's request of May 29 has been held to be 'not in terms of Rule 7,' the very foundation of raising the said ground does not exist,' it added.
India Gazette
4 hours ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC asks Govt to reconsider remission cancellation, directs opportunity for convict to be heard
New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to reconsider the cancellation of the remission granted to a life convict, stressing the need to follow principles of natural justice. The remission was revoked following the convict's arrest in an attempted murder case. 'The liberty of a person cannot be curtailed through administrative fiat without affording procedural safeguards. Since the cancellation of remission results in the convict's re-committal to custody, the consequence is serious enough to require strict adherence to natural justice,' the High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar case. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while directing reconsideration, asked the authorities to issue a show cause notice to the Convict and give him an opportunity before passing an order. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar has approached the High Court challenging the cancellation on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order cancelling his remission was passed. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court has categorically held that any decision to revoke remission must comply with due process and must be preceded by the issuance of a show cause notice, disclosing the grounds for cancellation and granting the convict an opportunity to respond and be heard. The record does not reflect that such an opportunity was extended to the petitioner before the cancellation of remission,' the High Court said in the order passed on May 20. 'While the order was passed in accordance with the Delhi Prison (DP) Rules, 2018, which at the relevant time did not mandate a prior show-cause notice to be issued, the binding precedent of the Supreme Court now requires that such safeguard be read into the process,' Justice Narula said. The High Court ordered, 'Accordingly, and in the interest of fairness, the Court deems it appropriate to direct reconsideration of the cancellation through a procedurally sound and time-bound exercise.' The High Court directed the Delhi government shall within a period of 10 days from today issue a show cause notice detailing the specific grounds on which cancellation of remission is proposed. The Petitioner shall submit a written response within seven days and shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the bench said. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a reasoned order, after due consideration of the petitioner's response, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, Justice Narula ordered. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar moved a petition through advocate Arpit Batra challenging the order of September 24, 2022, passed by the Dy. Secretary (Home), GNCTD, affirmed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The sentence remission was revoked, directing him to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Sonkar was convicted and sentenced to a life sentence in a murder case from 2004. After completing fifteen years of incarceration, he applied for premature release on the grounds of sustained good conduct while in custody. The Sentence Review Board (SRB), after considering his case, recommended his premature release, which was duly accepted by the competent authority. On September 9, 2019, the Petitioner was released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond. However, while on remission, in 2021, he was named in an FIR of Police Station Subzi Mandi under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC as well as Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act 1959. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on November 30, 2021, and lodged in Central Jail, Tihar. The authorities construed the initiation of fresh criminal proceedings against the petitioner as a breach of the undertakings embodied in the personal bond executed at the time of his premature release. Advocate Arpit Batra, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the mere pendency of a fresh FIR, particularly one in which the allegations are yet to be tested through trial, cannot constitute a sufficient basis to revoke a remission. It was also submitted that the petitioner was neither issued a show cause notice nor given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the order was passed. It is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. (ANI)
