Tribunal can’t decide without going through all the merits of a case: High Court of Karnataka
When a case is being dealt with in the Central Administrative tribunal, the tribunal cannot make an order by using its own discretion and has to consider all the merits of the case along with the various contentions put forth by both the parties. This was decided in the case of   Shiv Kumar and Ors. V State of Karnataka [Writ Petition No. 8668 of 2020 and Writ Petition No. 8791 of 2020 (S-CAT) ]  by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda. The facts of the case are that an order was made by the Karnataka State Legislature on 32-01-2012 wherein the assistant Commandants of Karnataka State Reserve Police wer as equivalent to Deputy Superintendent of Police (State Civil Police Services0. The matter was heard by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, and judgement has been delivered which is running into 142 pages. The tribunal has dismissed the original application holding the validity of order. This writ petition arises out of four aggrieved Karnataka State Civil Police Officers who applied originally in regard to the order made in terms of regulation which provides for issuance of equivalency order. It also stated that the equivalence as established by the statute shall only be extendable to the officers recruited into the various branches of the State Police Service based on their minimum qualifications and recruitment through a common standardized process. The tribunal said that in view of the proceedings before the tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the decision taken by then Govt. of Karnataka via the aforesaid order, the petitions filed should be disposed off. It said that the respondents have no other option except to follow the various orders and guidelines relating to the crucial date for inclusion in the select list. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that the State is going to send a list of Deputy Superintendent of Police served under Karnataka Civil Police and their interest is going to be hampered, if such a list is sent. On the other hand, the Government advocate has stated before this court that for a period of thirty days, the entire process shall be kept in abeyance. This court observed that it was unfortunate aspect of the case that there was no prayer for declaring other Police Services in the State of Karnataka as equivalent to the Karnataka Police Civil services and in spite of aforesaid, direction has been given to treat all the officers in Karnataka in the rank of Deputy superintendent of  Police and above in all streams with a minimum service of eight years and qualified as per the rules are eligible to considered for promotion into the post of Indian Police Service. The tribunal has issued a mandamus to the state of Karnataka to consider officers of other Police Services in Karnataka also as the state has other four more police services.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA WRIT PETITION NO.8868 OF 2020CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8791 OF 2020IN W.P. NO.8868 2020: R. SHIVAKUMARA S O. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEKARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA JUBLIEE CIRCLE DHARWAD 580 001. LAKSHMI GANESH S O. V. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEOFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CRIME AND TRAFFIC POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE A.B. SHETTY CIRCLE MANGALORE 575 001. T.J. UDESHA S O. T.V. JAYADEVA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B.H. ROAD NEAR SIDDAGANGA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TUMKURU 572 101. SACHIN GHORPADE S O. PARSHURAM GHORPADE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SP COMMUNAL INTELLIGENCE HEAD OFFICE NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560 002. V.J. SAJEETH S O. JANARDAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NO.5 MILLER ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU 560 001. BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH ... PETITIONERS SRI JAYANTH DEV KUMAR ADV.) STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110 001. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DHOLPUR HOUSE NEW DELHI 110 001 BY ITS SECRETARY. SRI M.V. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD MAJOR COMMANDANT 3RD BATTALION KARANTAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD 1ST BLOCK KORAMANGALA HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU 560 033. SRI BASAVARAJ ZILLE MAJOR COMMANDANT VI BATTALION KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE KALBURAGI 585101. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21 6 2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170 355 359 2016 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ALLOW THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170 355 359 2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND BENEFITS AND ETC. THE CENTRAL IN W.P. NO.8791 2020: UMA PRASHANTH D O. LATE PUTTANNAIAH L.S. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ACB MANGALORE AND WESTERN RANGE BANGALORE SOBHA CITY APARTMENT THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD R.K. HEGDE NAGAR BANGALORE 560 077. SMT. YASHODHA VANTAGODI W O. SUNIL VANTAGODI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS DCP CRIME AND TRAFFIC DIVISION SRIHARI BARGUR ALIAS SRIHARIBABU B.L. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S O. B.M. LINGANNA WORKING AS ADSP RAICHUR DISTRICT. SMT. GEETHA PRASANNA ALIAS GEETHA M.S. W O. PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.702 10TH CROSS VINAYA MARGA SIDDHARATHANAGAR MYSURU 570 011 WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DCRE CELL DR. SHOBHARANI V.J. D O. JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS ADSP TUMKUR DISTRICT. DR. SOUMYALATHA S.K. W O. SUSHEEN DUTT H.K. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRAFFIC WEST DIVISION SMT. KAVITHA B.T. W O. NAGASHAYANA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS DCP CRIME AND TRAFFIC BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI SHAMANTH NAIK ADV.) PETITIONERS STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110 001. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DHOLPUR HOUSE NEW DELHI 110 001 BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21 6 2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH BANGALORE IN ORIGINAL ANNEXURE A AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J. MADE THE FOLLOWING: APPLICATION NO.170 00365 377 2016 O R D E R The present writ petitions are arising out of order dated 21 6 2019 passed in four original applications preferred by the Karnataka State Civil Police Officers being aggrieved by order dated 23 1 2016 passed by the State Government in terms of Regulation II and which provides for issuance of equivalency order. 2. The equivalency order has been issued by the State of Karnataka on 23 1 2016 holding the Assistant Commandants of Karnataka State Reserve Police as equivalent to Deputy Superintendent of Police and judgment has been delivered which is running into 142 pages. The Tribunal has dismissed the original applications holding the validity of order dated 23 1 2016. However for upholding the validity of order dated 23 1 2016 reference finds place only in paragraph No.23 mean thereby after writing 142 pages only one paragraph deals with order dated 23 1 2016. 3. Paragraph Nos.23 to 26 of the order passed in the Original Applications reads as under: “23. Since the Hon ble Apex Court has laid down the law on the subject we hereby declare: a) The Karnataka Legislature has the jurisdiction and competence to enact and amend Section 3 of the Karnataka Police Act as it stands today. b) In consequence thereof there is only one police force in the State of the State Reserve Police Force established under Section 145. c) All the officers of Karnataka Police in all streams of policing of the rank of Dy. SP and above with a minimum service of eight years and qualified as per the rules are eligible to be considered for promotion into the Indian Police Service. d) As ordered in WP. No.3269 2012 dtd.25.4.2013 by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka vide sub para vii of para 71 the Government decision should contain the reasons either for granting equivalence or refusing to grant equivalence so aggrieved person could agitate his rights before this Court . The order of the Govt. of Karnataka at Annexure A27 GO No. DPAR 155 SPS 2013 dtd.23.01.2016 while ordering the equivalent to Civil Police Services for the purpose of promotion to Indian Police Service does not contain any reason as ordered by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka for not ordering the equivalence of the other police service officers of the police force of the State of Karnataka. e) As already noted as per Section 3 of the Karnataka Police Act there is only one police force in the State of Karnataka and as such leaving out certain other categories without any valid reason by the Government vide impugned order is not correct. Therefore there shall be a mandate to the Govt. of Karnataka to specify the reasons for not including the other police service officers for being eligible to be promoted to the Indian Police Service. The validity of order at Annexure A27 upheld. 24. We however make it clear that this equivalence as established by the statute shall only be extendable to the officers recruited into the various branches of the State Police Service based on their minimum qualifications standardised process. 25. In view of the various proceedings before this Tribunal as well as the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and the decision taken by the Govt. of Karnataka vide order at Annexure A27 it is clarified that the orders shall take effect only from the date of the impugned order. The OAs.No.355 359 2016 362 364 2016 365 377 2016 are disposed off as above. No costs. 26. Regarding OAs.No.631 635 2017 as stated by the respondents the application is filed against internal communications between the Government and the DG & IG of Police. The respondents have no other option to follow the various orders and guidelines relating to the crucial date for inclusion in the select list etc. which are all established. This shall do accordingly and therefore these OAs stand 4. Most unfortunate aspect of the case is that there was no prayer for declaring other Police Services in the State of Karnataka as equivalent to the Karnataka Police Civil Services and in spite of aforesaid direction has been given to treat all the Officers in Karnataka in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and above in all streams with a minimum service of eight years and qualified as per the rules are eligible to be considered for promotion into the post of Indian Police Service. The Tribunal has issued a mandamus to the State of Karnataka to consider Officers of other Police services in Karnataka also. The State of Karnataka has other four Police services. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court the Tribunal should have gone in detail in respect of the impugned order dated 23 1 2016 and should have decided the matter on merits after considering all rival contentions of the parties. The same has certainly not been done. With the consent of the parties matter is being remanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh in accordance with law that too after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. There are certain interveners also in the present case and therefore interveners are permitted to intervention application before the Tribunal. 6. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that the State is going to send a list of Deputy Superintendent of Police serving under Karnataka Civil Police and their interest is going to be hampered if such a list is sent. 7. Learned Government Advocate has stated before this Court that for a period of thirty days the entire process shall be kept in abeyance. 8. Resultantly without averting into the merits of the case the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8 2 2021. No further notice is required as all parties are present before this Court and even interveners are present. With the aforesaid directions writ petitions stand disposed of. 9. It is further made clear that the Tribunal will not grant any adjournment in the matter and the parties shall co operate with the final hearing of the matter and in case any necessity for grant of adjournment arises the Tribunal shall record reasons for such an adjournment. 10. All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd JUDGE Sd 