S.3(1)(p) SC/ST Act Can't Be Used As A Tool For 'Arm Twisting' After Accepting Pensionary Benefits: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against a bank employee, who happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community and is accused of committing irregularities, cannot be challenged under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act, after such employee has accepted the penalty and has received the pension. Section 3(1)(p) directs that a false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or legal proceedings if instituted against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would incur the offences under the Act.The court thus quashed the first information report registered against 10 Canara Bank employees under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the complaint filed by a former employee who was charged with committing irregularities. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The complainant could not have registered a complaint post-retirement, that too against several retired officers of the Bank. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would undoubtedly degenerate into harassment and would become an abuse of the process of law and result in grave miscarriage of justice." As per the complaint filed by Chandrakant Munavalli when he was functioning as a Manager at the Town Hall Branch of the Bank, he was suspended from service for allegedly indulging in certain irregularities. A departmental inquiry was conducted and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service upon him. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at Bangalore alleging that the Bank has committed an atrocity against him by initiating departmental inquiry and imposing on him compulsory retirement from service. The commission recommended that the punishment imposed against the petitioner should be declared as null and void and he should be reinstated into service forthwith. The High Court stayed this order and disposed of the matter by directing the Bank to look into the recommendation of the Commission before passing any order with regard to the service of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority in the Bank re-examined the matter and imposed punishment of reduction to a lower grade from Middle Management Grade Scale II to Junior Management Grade-I. The complainant then approached the Appellate Authority which further modified the penalty of reduction in time scale by 13 stages while retaining him in MMG-II. With this penalty, the complainant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, the complainant lodged a complaint against the Bank and its officials, alleging that the Bank by the aforesaid acts has tortured the complainant. Findings: On perusing the litigation record the bench observed, "it would become unmistakably clear that the complainant has resorted to arm twisting the petitioners by invoking the provisions of the Act after having accepted the order of penalty and receiving pension from the Bank." The bench said, "It is the acts of the complainant himself that led to his dismissal from service and accepting the orders passed by this Court and subsequent orders passed by the authorities the complainant was reinstated into service. Those orders which permitted him to work in the Bank and retire on attaining the age of superannuation have not been questioned by the complainant as on date. In accepting all the orders and monthly pension, there cannot be any ingredients of Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the Act to allege offence." It added,"The Employer Bank has only exercised its right under the Constitution by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling into question the orders passed by the Commission which were in favour of the complainant. This cannot, by any means of interpretation, become a false, malicious or vexatious suit against the members (the Petitioner) belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe or would not mean false or frivolous information given to any public servant causing injury or annoyance of a member of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe." It then held, "The petitioner is the beneficiary of the order passed by this Court, accepts the same, takes the benefits, and then turns around and alleges offences punishable under the Act. Therefore, no offence, under the act, is on the face of it, made out." Case Title: K.P.N. SHENOY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 330 Date of Order: 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022 Appearance: Senior Advocate SANDESH J.CHOUTA, a/w Advocate VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL for petitioners; HCGP K.S.ABHIJITH, FOR R1; Advocate...

S.3(1)(p) SC/ST Act Can't Be Used As A Tool For 'Arm Twisting' After Accepting Pensionary Benefits: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags