Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 4094 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. K .N. SUDHA MANI,
D/O NARAYANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
T. NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT 571124.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B
S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY-1,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF TRIBUNAL
WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
ST
No.34, 1 FLOOR, LOTUS TOWERS,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ORDER IMPOSING PUNISHMENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER BEARING No.SaKaNi/Sibbadndi-2/CR-22/17-18
ND
DATED 27.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A9 PASSED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT AUTHORITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2022 in
Application No.954/2020 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal')
whereunder, the petitioner's prayer to quash the order of
penalty dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-A9) imposing penalty of
withholding two increments without cumulative effect and
recovery of a sum of Rs.1,51,700/- by installment, is rejected.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel Sri. A. Nagarajappa for the
petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri. V. Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the
entire writ petition papers.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
while working as Assistant Director of Department of Social
Welfare, K.R. Pete Taluk, Articles of Charge dated 22.11.2016
was issued, alleging certain misconduct in not performing her
supervisory duty over the Pre-metric Boys Hostel, K.R. Pete.
On the said articles of charge, a detailed enquiry was conducted
and the Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 15.05.2019
holding that Charge No.1 is proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 are
partly proved.
3.1 The petitioner was issued with second show cause
notice dated 18.07.2019 along with the enquiry report. The
petitioner is said to have submitted a reply. The Disciplinary
Authority, the State Government, on considering the enquiry
report and reply of the petitioner, imposed penalty under
impugned order dated 27.12.2019 imposing penalty of
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
withholding two increments without cumulative effect and
recovery of a sum of Rs.1,51,700/- in 31 installments.
Questioning the said order of penalty, the petitioner was before
the Tribunal.
3.2 The Tribunal under impugned order was of the
opinion that the Disciplinary Authority examined entire
materials and thereafter proceeded to impose the penalty. The
Tribunal also observed that looking to the nature and gravity of
charge, the penalty is reasonable, proper and proportionate.
Aggrieved by the order of penalty as well as the order of the
Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri. A. Nagarajappa for the
petitioner would submit that there is no material whatsoever to
prove the charge against the petitioner. Further, he submits
that the alleged charge against the petitioner is baseless and
the charges alleged against the petitioner relates to the Warden
of the Pre-metric Boys Hostel, K.R. Pete. He further that the
charge levelled against the Warden, enquiry was conducted and
was exonerated for the same allegation, as such, the petitioner
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
ought to have been exonerated when the charges against the
warden is not proved.
4.1 Further, learned counsel would submit that in view
of the penalty, the petitioner's promotion was denied to the
next higher cadre of Deputy Director. It is also submitted that
the petitioner has submitted representation to the respondents
to consider her case for promotion to the next higher cadre of
Deputy Director as the period of punishment has already been
over. Thus, he would pray for appropriate direction to the
respondent-authorities.
Per contra
5. , learned Additional Government
Advocate Sri. V. Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would
submit that the respondents imposed penalty under order
dated 27.12.2019 for the proved misconduct. Learned AGA
would submit that the enquiry officer has held that the charges
are proved based on the material placed on record. It is
submitted that the Disciplinary Authority examined PW.1 to
PW.4 and marked several documents to prove the charges
against the petitioner. The petitioner was given all the
opportunity to defend herself in the enquiry. It is further
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
submitted that there are no procedural irregularities alleged
and as the punishment imposed is on proved misconduct, he
prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the entire material on record, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order of penalty as well as order
passed by the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal upon examination
of the entire material has come to the conclusion that the
Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of withholding two
increments without cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of
Rs.1,51,700/- and proceeded to impose the penalty. The
Tribunal has also observed that looking to the nature and
gravity of charge, the imposition of penalty is reasonable and
proportionate.
7. The charge against the petitioner reads as follows:
"
DgÉÆÃ¥À:-1
PÀÄ: ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄtÂ. PÉ. J£ï. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉ, PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁV C£ÀĵÁÖ£ÀUÉƽ¸ÀzÉÃ, ²æÃ
zÉêÀgÁdÄ, ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ªÁqÀð£ï, ªÉÄnæPï ¥ÀƪÀð ¨Á®PÀgÀ «zÁåyð
¤®AiÀÄ, PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ mË£ï, EªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉV£À ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ zÉéõÀ¢AzÀ
QvÁÛl ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ, G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè, gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:08-01-2016gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÃAzÀæ
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ C¥ÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(DqÀ½vÀ),
¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ £ÉÃvÀÈvÀéªÀ£ÉÆß¼ÀUÉÆAqÀAvÉ
vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ £Àqɹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä vÀ¤SÁ vÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀa¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ,
CzÀgÀAvÉ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:04-03-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢
¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV F PɼÀPÀAqÀ £ÀÆå£ÀvÉUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
PÀÄ: ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄt ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ DzÀ
¤ÃªÀÅ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀªÁV vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è£À «zÁåy𠤮AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ
ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¨sÉUÀ½UÉ ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÁ¸À ¢£ÀZÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
f¯ÉèAiÀÄ°è£À ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè EªÀgÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ
C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀæªÁ¸À ¢£ÀZÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß f¯Áè ªÀÄlÖzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ
¸À°è¸À¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ E¯ÁSÁ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À ªÀåªÀ¹ÜvÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ
PÀÄAnvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è£À
«zÁåy𠤮AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¤®AiÀiÁyðUÀ¼ÀÄ
JzÀÄj¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÀ¼ÀÄ/AiÉÆÃUÀPÉëêÀÄzÀ §UÉÎAiÀiÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ
CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¹UÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ PÀ¤µÀÖ ªÀÄlÖzÀ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ
¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀĪÀ ¤nÖ£À°è PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÄÝ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1900gÀ
(i.ii.iii)
3(1) G®èAX¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt,
¤AiÀÄAvÀæt & ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1957 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ
UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.
DgÉÆÃ¥À:- 2
PÀÄ: ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄtÂ. PÉ. J£ï. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉ, PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÉÄnæPï ¥ÀƪÀð
¨Á®PÀgÀ «zÁåy𠤮AiÀÄ PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ ¤®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ
2014-15 £Éà ¸Á°£À ºÁdgÁw PÀÄjvÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ
ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 2015-16 £Éà ¸Á°£À ºÁdgÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ
ªÀiÁvÀæ PÉ® wAUÀ½¤AzÀ PÀrªÉÄ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹zÀgÉ ªÁqÀð£ïgÀªÀjUÀÆ ¤ªÀÄUÀÆ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ
zÉéõÀ EgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 2014-15 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¸ÀzÀj
¤®AiÀÄzÀ°è£À ºÁdgÁw §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DPÉëÃ¥À ªÀåQÛ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è
DzÀgÉ 2015-16 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¤®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÀrªÉÄ «zÁåyðUÀ½gÀĪÀ
§UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄwÛÃj. vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è
¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀAvÉ ²æà zÉêÀgÁdÄ, ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ªÁqÀð£ï, EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ
41 «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ dÆ£ï 2015 jAzÀ r¸ÉA§gï 2015gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 4094 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. K .N. SUDHA MANI,
D/O NARAYANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
T. NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT 571124.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B
S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY-1,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF TRIBUNAL
WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
ST
No.34, 1 FLOOR, LOTUS TOWERS,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ORDER IMPOSING PUNISHMENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER BEARING No.SaKaNi/Sibbadndi-2/CR-22/17-18
ND
DATED 27.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A9 PASSED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT AUTHORITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2022 in
Application No.954/2020 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal')
whereunder, the petitioner's prayer to quash the order of
penalty dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-A9) imposing penalty of
withholding two increments without cumulative effect and
recovery of a sum of Rs.1,51,700/- by installment, is rejected.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel Sri. A. Nagarajappa for the
petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri. V. Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the
entire writ petition papers.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
while working as Assistant Director of Department of Social
Welfare, K.R. Pete Taluk, Articles of Charge dated 22.11.2016
was issued, alleging certain misconduct in not performing her
supervisory duty over the Pre-metric Boys Hostel, K.R. Pete.
On the said articles of charge, a detailed enquiry was conducted
and the Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 15.05.2019
holding that Charge No.1 is proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 are
partly proved.
3.1 The petitioner was issued with second show cause
notice dated 18.07.2019 along with the enquiry report. The
petitioner is said to have submitted a reply. The Disciplinary
Authority, the State Government, on considering the enquiry
report and reply of the petitioner, imposed penalty under
impugned order dated 27.12.2019 imposing penalty of
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
withholding two increments without cumulative effect and
recovery of a sum of Rs.1,51,700/- in 31 installments.
Questioning the said order of penalty, the petitioner was before
the Tribunal.
3.2 The Tribunal under impugned order was of the
opinion that the Disciplinary Authority examined entire
materials and thereafter proceeded to impose the penalty. The
Tribunal also observed that looking to the nature and gravity of
charge, the penalty is reasonable, proper and proportionate.
Aggrieved by the order of penalty as well as the order of the
Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri. A. Nagarajappa for the
petitioner would submit that there is no material whatsoever to
prove the charge against the petitioner. Further, he submits
that the alleged charge against the petitioner is baseless and
the charges alleged against the petitioner relates to the Warden
of the Pre-metric Boys Hostel, K.R. Pete. He further that the
charge levelled against the Warden, enquiry was conducted and
was exonerated for the same allegation, as such, the petitioner
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
ought to have been exonerated when the charges against the
warden is not proved.
4.1 Further, learned counsel would submit that in view
of the penalty, the petitioner's promotion was denied to the
next higher cadre of Deputy Director. It is also submitted that
the petitioner has submitted representation to the respondents
to consider her case for promotion to the next higher cadre of
Deputy Director as the period of punishment has already been
over. Thus, he would pray for appropriate direction to the
respondent-authorities.
Per contra
5. , learned Additional Government
Advocate Sri. V. Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would
submit that the respondents imposed penalty under order
dated 27.12.2019 for the proved misconduct. Learned AGA
would submit that the enquiry officer has held that the charges
are proved based on the material placed on record. It is
submitted that the Disciplinary Authority examined PW.1 to
PW.4 and marked several documents to prove the charges
against the petitioner. The petitioner was given all the
opportunity to defend herself in the enquiry. It is further
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
submitted that there are no procedural irregularities alleged
and as the punishment imposed is on proved misconduct, he
prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the entire material on record, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order of penalty as well as order
passed by the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal upon examination
of the entire material has come to the conclusion that the
Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of withholding two
increments without cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of
Rs.1,51,700/- and proceeded to impose the penalty. The
Tribunal has also observed that looking to the nature and
gravity of charge, the imposition of penalty is reasonable and
proportionate.
7. The charge against the petitioner reads as follows:
"
DgÉÆÃ¥À:-1
PÀÄ: ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄtÂ. PÉ. J£ï. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉ, PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁV C£ÀĵÁÖ£ÀUÉƽ¸ÀzÉÃ, ²æÃ
zÉêÀgÁdÄ, ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ªÁqÀð£ï, ªÉÄnæPï ¥ÀƪÀð ¨Á®PÀgÀ «zÁåyð
¤®AiÀÄ, PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ mË£ï, EªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉV£À ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ zÉéõÀ¢AzÀ
QvÁÛl ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ, G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè, gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:08-01-2016gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÃAzÀæ
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ C¥ÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(DqÀ½vÀ),
¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ £ÉÃvÀÈvÀéªÀ£ÉÆß¼ÀUÉÆAqÀAvÉ
vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ £Àqɹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä vÀ¤SÁ vÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀa¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ,
CzÀgÀAvÉ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:04-03-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢
¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV F PɼÀPÀAqÀ £ÀÆå£ÀvÉUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
PÀÄ: ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄt ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ DzÀ
¤ÃªÀÅ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀªÁV vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è£À «zÁåy𠤮AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ
ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¨sÉUÀ½UÉ ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæªÁ¸À ¢£ÀZÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
f¯ÉèAiÀÄ°è£À ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè EªÀgÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ
C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀæªÁ¸À ¢£ÀZÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß f¯Áè ªÀÄlÖzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ
¸À°è¸À¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ E¯ÁSÁ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À ªÀåªÀ¹ÜvÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ
PÀÄAnvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è£À
«zÁåy𠤮AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¤®AiÀiÁyðUÀ¼ÀÄ
JzÀÄj¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÀ¼ÀÄ/AiÉÆÃUÀPÉëêÀÄzÀ §UÉÎAiÀiÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ
CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¹UÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ PÀ¤µÀÖ ªÀÄlÖzÀ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ
¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀĪÀ ¤nÖ£À°è PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÄÝ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1900gÀ
(i.ii.iii)
3(1) G®èAX¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt,
¤AiÀÄAvÀæt & ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1957 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ
UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.
DgÉÆÃ¥À:- 2
PÀÄ: ¸ÀÄzsÁªÀÄtÂ. PÉ. J£ï. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt
E¯ÁSÉ, PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÉÄnæPï ¥ÀƪÀð
¨Á®PÀgÀ «zÁåy𠤮AiÀÄ PÉ. Dgï. ¥ÉÃmÉ ¤®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ
2014-15 £Éà ¸Á°£À ºÁdgÁw PÀÄjvÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ
ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 2015-16 £Éà ¸Á°£À ºÁdgÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ
ªÀiÁvÀæ PÉ® wAUÀ½¤AzÀ PÀrªÉÄ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹zÀgÉ ªÁqÀð£ïgÀªÀjUÀÆ ¤ªÀÄUÀÆ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ
zÉéõÀ EgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 2014-15 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¸ÀzÀj
¤®AiÀÄzÀ°è£À ºÁdgÁw §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DPÉëÃ¥À ªÀåQÛ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è
DzÀgÉ 2015-16 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¤®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÀrªÉÄ «zÁåyðUÀ½gÀĪÀ
§UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄwÛÃj. vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è
¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀAvÉ ²æà zÉêÀgÁdÄ, ¢£ÀUÀÆ° ªÁqÀð£ï, EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ
41 «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ dÆ£ï 2015 jAzÀ r¸ÉA§gï 2015gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
| PÀæ<br>¸ÀASÉå | ¤®AiÀiÁ<br>yðUÀ¼À<br>¸ÀASÉå | ªÀiÁºÉ | MlÄÖ<br>CªÀ¢ü<br>(wAUÀ¼ÀÄ) | ¨ÉÆÃd£À ªÉZÀÑ ¥Àæw<br>¤®AiÀiÁyðUÉ<br>ªÀiÁºÉAiÀiÁ£À | MlÄÖ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 41 | dÆ£ï-2015 jAzÀ<br>DUÀ¸ïÖ-2015 | 3 | 1000 | 123.000 |
| 2 | 41 | ¸É¥ÀÖA§gï-2015<br>jAzÀ r¸ÉA§gï-<br>2015 | 4 | 1100 | 180.400 |
| MlÄÖ | 7 | 303.400 |
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
G®âtUÉÆAqÀÄ E¯ÁSÉUÉ PÉlÖ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ §gÀ®Ä PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1966 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ
(24) gÀAvÉ AiÀiÁgÉà ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀƪÀð ªÀÄAdÆgÁw
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÀ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀÈvÀåªÀÅ ¥ÀæwPÀÆ® nÃPÉAiÀÄ CxÀªÁ
ªÀiÁ£ÀºÁ¤ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ ¤AzsÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ «µÀAiÀĪÁVgÀĪÀÅzÉÆà D
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀÈvÀåzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄxÀð£ÉUÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ
CxÀªÁ ¥ÀwæPÉUÉ ªÉÆgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è JA§ÄzÁV ¸ÀàµÀÖ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ
DzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ / ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ zÁR°¹ £ÀqÀvÉ
¤AiÀĪÀÄ (24) £ÀÄß G®èAX¹gÀÄwÛÃj. F jÃw PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀUÀĪÀ
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1966 gÀ
(i.ii.iii)
3(1) £ÀÄß G®èAX¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt,
¤AiÀÄAvÀæt & ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1957 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ
UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄwÛÃj
¸À»/-
DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ."
8. In sum and substance, the charge against the
petitioner is that the petitioner has failed to take action against
the Warden for his mismanagement of the Pre-metric Boys
Hostel at K.R. Pete. It is also alleged that the Warden at
Pre-metric Boys Hostel, K.R. Pete has misutilised the grant
given for the hostel and it was also alleged that the said
misutilisation was in connivance with the petitioner. Before the
enquiry officer, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the
Disciplinary Authority and several documents were marked by
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
the disciplinary authority. At paragraph Nos.56 and 60 of the
enquiry report, the observation reads as follows:
"56. ¤±Á£É ¦-8 JA§ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå 11 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 12gÀ°è
MzÀV¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀnÖPÉUÀ¼À°è PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 1, 8, 13 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 16gÀ £Á®égÀÄ
«zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ½¤AzÀ; PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 15gÀ E§âgÀÄ
«zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ wAUÀ½¤AzÀ; PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 4gÀ «zÁåyð £Á®ÄÌ
wAUÀ½¤AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 17gÀ «zÁåyð MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀ¢AzÀ
§gÀÄwÛ®èªÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ. PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 22gÀ «zÁåyð DgÀÄ
wAUÀ½¤AzÀ §gÀÄwÛ®èªÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÀÝgÉ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 18 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
31gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤®AiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ©nÖgÀĪÀgÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ¯ÁVzÉ. PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå
34gÀªÀgÀÄ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©nÖgÀĪÀgÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ. E£ÀÄß PÀæªÀÄ
¸ÀASÉå 3 ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ¢AzÀ®Æ §gÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀÝgÉ PÀæªÀÄ
¸ÀASÉå 7, 9, 12, 14, 19, 21, 23jAzÀ 30, 32, 33, 35jAzÀ
41gÀªÀgÉV£À 23 «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁV¤AzÀ '§gÀÄwÛ®è ªÉAzÀÄ
£ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è. PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 5, 10, 11 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 20 gÁwæ ªÉÃ¼É ªÀiÁvÀæ
EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉ£À߯ÁVzÉ. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw ¯ÉPÀÌ ºÁQzÀgÀÆ
DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ K¼ÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ½AzÀ 41 «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ
¤®AiÀÄ ªÉZÀÑ gÀÆ.3,03,400/- DVzÉ J£Àß®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÉà E®è, vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ
£ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁZïð 2016gÀ°è. PÀ.D.£Ë.2gÀªÀgÀÄ d£ÀªÀj
2016gÀ°èAiÉÄà PÉ.Dgï.¥ÉÃmÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©nÖzÁÝgÉ. ªÉÄïÁV MAzÀÄ
ªÁgÀ¢AzÀ/MAzÀÄ CxÀªÁ JgÀqÀÄ wAUÀ½¤AzÀ §gÀÄwÛ®èªÉA§ÄzÀÄ CªÀgÀ
PÁAiÀiÁðªÀ¢üUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è,
60. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÐ¥À£Á ¸ÀASÉå r.¦.J.Dgï.9 J¸ï.r.E.
86 ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.08.1986gÀ C£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁ« vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ
DzsÁgÀzÀ°è ¥Áæ.¸Á.2jAzÀ 4gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÀëåªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¤tð¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §¼À¹PÉƼÀî®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÁV ªÁ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÐ¥À£Á '«µÀAiÀÄ' zÀrAiÀÄ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ EzÀÄ
DgÉÆÃ¥À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ
¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÉ. ¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁ« vÀ¤SÉ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ
DzsÁgÀªÁVlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¥À¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹, C£ÀħAzsÀ-3
JA§ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß
UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁ« vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄïÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C¥ÁzÀ£É ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ F
ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¥ÁzÀ£É ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ°Ã ªÀiÁqÀPÀÆqÀzÀÄ
ºÁUÀÆ D¥ÁzÀ£Á ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DzsÀj¹
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
ªÀiÁvÀæ vÀAiÀiÁj¹ D¥Á¢vÀ £ËPÀgÀ¤UÉ MzÀV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ
C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ºÁ° ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è£À
DgÉÆÃ¥À¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀħAzsÀ-3gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁzÀ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀëäªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ
DgÉÆÃ¥À¥ÀnÖAiÀÄÄ PÉêÀ® ¤±Á£É ¦-8 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯ÁzÀ
¥Áæ.¸Á.4gÀªÀgÀ £ÉÃvÀÈvÀézÀ vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄîµÉÖÃ
CªÀ®A©vÀªÁV®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ¥Áæ.¸Á.1gÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ,
«zÁåy𠤮AiÀÄzÀ°è, ¤ªÀð»¸À¯ÁzÀ ««zsÀ ªÀ»UÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥Àæ²ßvÀ
WÀl£ÁªÀ½ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è, PÀ.D.£Ë.2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ
PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ ªÉÄðzÀÝgÉA§ ¸ÀAUÀw, PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ
¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉUÀ¼ÀÄ/DzÉñÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀ.D.C.1gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ.D.£Ë.2gÀªÀgÀÄ
(admissions)
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ M¦àUÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ««zsÀ
C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ DVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ... EªÉ®èªÀÅUÀ¼À ªÉÄïÉ
DgÉÆÃ¥À¥ÀnÖAiÀÄÄ DzsÀjvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ DgÉÆÃ¥À¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
vÀAiÀiÁj¹ PÀ.D.C.1gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ.D,£Ë.2gÀªÀjUÉ MzÀV¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
EµÀÖPÀÆÌ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£ÀzÀ°è ¤µÉâü¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ²¸ÀÄÛ
¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁ« vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¥ÁzÀ£É ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è
£ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ G®èAWÀ£É
DVgÀĪÀÅzÉA§ÄzÀÄ ¤d, ºÉZÉÑAzÀgÉ CzÀÄ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¤¸À§®ÄèzÀÄ.
ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀªÁV ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀ
¸ÁPÀëå ¸ÁªÀÄVæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DzsÀj¹ «ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É F «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è,
¤tðAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄà «£ÀB PÉêÀ® ¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁ«
«ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É C®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ F ±ÀÄzÁÞAUÀ vÁAwæPÀ
(purely technical objection)
DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É F «ZÁgÀuÉ
C£ÀÆfðvÀªÉAzÀÄ ¤tð¬Ä¸À®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ÄzÀÄ
«ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄæ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÁVzÉ. DUÀ¯Éà ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ,
(legal
¤gÀƦ¸À¯ÁzÀ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀƤ£À HºÉ
Inference flowing from the proved facts)
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À
EzÉÝà EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, F ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀߪÀ£Éßà «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ
ªÁPÀåªÀÈAzÀUÀ¼À°è ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ºÁ° ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀĪÀ
ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ°è PÀ.D.C.1gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ.D.£Ë.2 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À
PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À«gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV PÁt§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ,"
9. The above findings of the enquiry officer are based
on the documents which were marked during the enquiry. A
perusal of the enquiry report indicates that there was sufficient
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
material to prove the charge and based on the material on
record, the enquiry officer has rightly come to the conclusion
that charge No.1 is proved and charge Nos.2 and 3 are partly
proved. The petitioner was also given an opportunity by issuing
second show cause notice to explain findings in the enquiry
report. On considering the replies submitted by the petitioner
to the second show cause notice, the State has appropriately
imposed penalty of withholding two increments without
cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of Rs.1,51,700/- which
according to us is reasonable and proportionate to the gravity
and nature of charge.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy General
Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar
Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 has made it clear
that unless and until it is shown that the enquiry conducted is
in violation of principles of natural justice and when its a case
of no evidence, only then the High Court would get jurisdiction
to interfere with the findings and penalty. The High Court would
not sit as an appellate authority, under judicial review, it would
only examine the process of decision making and it would not
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9886-DB
WP No. 4094 of 2023
HC-KAR
go into the correctness or otherwise of penalty imposed. In
that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no
merit in the petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands
rejected.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out
that the petitioner had made representation dated 20.12.2022
(Anneuxre-R11), requesting the State Government to open the
sealed cover followed in her case with regard to her promotion
and to give effect to the decision of the DPC as the petitioner
has undergone the penalty and the penalty period is also over.
In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to
consider the representation dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure-R11)
if the petitioner is eligible according to seniority and if there is
no other impediment for promotion, pass appropriate order in
accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7