Officer Posted 'In-Charge' Of A Post Can Discharge Its Statutory Functions: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

The Karnataka High Court has recently said that an officer posted as in-charge of a post can discharge the functions/duties of the said post, including statutory functions.

Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing a plea by Prakash Ramachandra Hegde, who had questioned the order of Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies (ARCS), Kumta, who being the officiating/in-charge officer had on November 27 stayed the order of disqualification of one Vivek Subraya Bhat. Bhat was earlier disqualified on November 25 by the Assistant Commissioner.

The petitioner contended that ARCS, Kumta not being the rank of a Deputy Registrar who is the appellate authority under Section 106(3) of the Act, was not empowered to pass the order staying the disqualification order.

The respondents submitted that by virtue of Rule 68 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules the ARCS Kumta, who is appointed as in charge of the (Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies) DRCS, U.K is entitled to take all necessary steps and that the action taken by the ARCS, Kumta is required to be deemed/construed as steps taken by the DRCS.

The bench noted that Section 106(1)(d-2) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act stipulates that an appeal shall lie against an order passed under Section 29(c) of the Act. Further Section 106(2)(a) of the Act stipulates that an appeal from an order made by the Assistant Registrar shall lie to the jurisdictional Deputy Registrar.

Referring to Rule 32 of KCSR (Karnataka Civil Service Rules) which provides that instead of appointing a Government servant to officiate, the court noted that it is also permissible to appoint him to be in charge of current duties of a vacant post. In this context, the court noted that on May 30 the ARCS, Kumta has been stipulated to officiate the post of the DRCS, U.K.

The court placed reliance on Supreme Court judgment in the case of Gopalji Khanna vs. Allahabad Bank and Others, (1996) wherein the Supreme Court was considering whether the power of review was available to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Allahabad Bank under the regulations pertaining to the Bank and whether the power could have been exercised by the Executive Director who, in the absence of the Chairman and Managing Director was entrusted with the current charge of the duties of the office of the Chairman and Managing Director.

The high court noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the contention that “when a person entrusted with charge of current duties of higher post, he can exercise only those powers and perform those functions which are available to a person holding the higher post under executive orders and not those which are conferred by statutory provisions”.

Considering the contentions the high court said, "Notwithstanding the factual matrix of the submissions that have been made, as noticed above, with regard to legal question as to whether an officer-in-charge, who has been ordered to officiate in another post (albeit that of a superior officer), where he is required to discharge functions/duties of the post to which he has been placed incharge of, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopalji Khanna has considered the said aspect of the matter and held that the officer is entitled to perform all functions".

The court said, “However having regard to the specific question considered and the legal position enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gapalji Khanna which has been followed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Savariar and a Co-ordinate Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Sugunapri , the said dicta is required to be followed".

It also said that it is not the contention of the petitioner that to hold the post of DRCS, UK, any specific technical expertise is required and the said post can be held only by a person possessing any specific educational/qualifying criteria, which the ARCS, Kumta does not possess.

The bench dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Jayakumar S Patil, for Advocate Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, Kaveri Hiremath for Petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Gangadhar J M for AGA Mala D Bhute FOR R1 TO R3.

Advocate A P Hedge FOR /R5.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 520

Case Title: Prakash Ramachandra Hegde

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.107291 OF 2024 (CS-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.107287 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order