SRI L.S.KAMBLE vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

R


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT PETITION NO.202478 OF 2019 (S-KAT)


BETWEEN:

SRI L.S. KAMBLE
(LAXMAN SHIVABASAPPA KAMBLE)
S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC. EX. ASST. HORTICULTURAL OFFICER,
Z.P. RAIBAG BELLGAUM DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT C/O SRI K.L.NADAMANI,
VIJRAHANUMAN NAGAR, HARKARI BADAVANE,
NEAR IBRAHIMPUR, RAILWAY STATION,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 109.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. VILASKUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI. NITISH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
IN KARNATAKA, LALBHAGH,
BENGALURU-560 004.








Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
D UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019



3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
(Z.P.) VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT.
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.

4. THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
HORTICULTURE,
OF (Z.P.), VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT,
VIJAYAPUR- 586 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7388/2012 DATED
16.03.2018 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS DENIAL
OF BACK WAGES AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE OF IMPOSING
OF PENALTY OF WITHHOLDING OF ONE INCREMENT WITH
CUMULATIVE EFFECT AND ORDER FOR THE REINSTATEMENT
OF THE PETITIONER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 15.09.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated
16.03.2018 in Application No.7388/2012 passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short,
‘Tribunal’), insofar as it denied continuity of service, back
wages, and imposed the penalty of withholding one increment
with cumulative effect.

2. The facts apropos are that the Petitioner joined the
services of the Department of Horticulture on 12.02.1999 as
Assistant Horticultural Officer (AHO) at Kalaburagi and was later
transferred to Bijapur. While working as AHO, he was given
additional charge of the post of Senior Assistant Director of
Horticulture, Zilla Panchayat, Bijapur from 12.09.2000 to
20.01.2003. On receipt of the complaint, a team was
constituted to inspect the records of the Office of the Senior
Assistant Director of Horticulture and submit a report on the
release of subsidy under the Drip Irrigation Scheme. The
investigation report dated 10.10.2003 was submitted to the
Director of Horticulture.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019



3. The Competent Authority served a charge sheet
dated 28.05.2004 to Sri S.K.Kamalakara, Assistant Horticultural
Officer, and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer submitted the enquiry report on 18.01.2005, holding
that an excess amount of Rs. 15,538/- was paid to the
beneficiary, Smt. Sharada Bai, which is to be recovered from
Sri.S.K.Kamalakara. Based on the Enquiry Officer's findings, the
Director of Horticulture imposed a penalty of recovery of
Rs.15,538/- and also ordered a reduction of Rs.200/- from his
salary up to June 2007.

4. The Petitioner states that, for the same incident,
Respondent No. 2 also initiated a Departmental Enquiry against
him under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the
KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957’). The Petitioner offered his explanation
denying the allegations or the charges leveled against him on
the ground that the amount alleged to have been
misappropriated has already been recovered from
Sri.S.K.Kamalakara by order dated 06.03.2006; thus, he shall
be exonerated from the charges. The explanation so offered not

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


having been accepted, an enquiry was conducted against the
Petitioner, and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges framed
against the Petitioner were proved. Pursuant to the enquiry
report, the Petitioner was served with a second show-cause
notice calling upon him to explain why punishment should not
be imposed.

5. The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying
the allegations made against him. Not being satisfied with the
explanation offered, the Director of Horticulture, vide
communication dated 12/24.11.2009, recommended to the
State Government that Rs.15,538/- along with 8% interest be
recovered from the Petitioner and that the Petitioner be
dismissed from service.

6. The State Government, as the Competent Authority
to impose punishment and in exercise of its power under Rule
8(viii) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, passed an order of
dismissal dated 07.09.2012, dismissing the Petitioner from
service with immediate effect.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019



7. The Petitioner assailed the Order passed by
Respondent No. 1 dated 07.09.2012 before the Tribunal in
Application No.7388/2012. The Tribunal, having regard to the
material documents and the contentions advanced by the
parties, allowed the Application in part and thereby quashed the
order of dismissal dated 07.09.2012. The Respondent-State
Government was directed to reinstate the applicant within three
months. The order of dismissal was modified to the extent of a
penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.
As far as the period between the date of dismissal and the date
of reinstatement, it was ordered to be treated as dies non . The
Petitioner has now challenged the Tribunal’s order dated
16.03.2018 in the present Writ Petition.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
submits that no loss was caused to the State Exchequer, as the
misappropriated amount was recovered from
Sri.S.K.Kamalakara, and that the Petitioner has not benefited
from any unjust enrichment. It is argued that the Petitioner has
not gained anything for his benefit. It is further argued that
there is no nexus between the Petitioner and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


Sri.S.K.Kamalakara and thus, the Petitioner cannot be dragged
into the allegation of misappropriation of subsidy amount. It is
further argued that the Tribunal ought to have decided whether
the Petitioner was negligent in the discharge of duties, which
amounted to misconduct.

9. It is further argued by the learned Senior Counsel
that since the loss caused to the State’s exchequer has since
been made good and recovered by the State, it presupposes
that the Petitioner is not involved. Lastly, learned Senior
Counsel would submit that the enquiry report contains no
discussion of the Petitioners’ involvement and is cryptic,
amounting to an empty formality.

10. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel
would press into service the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
1
Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs J. Ahmed and
2
Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. and Ors. . Thus, the
learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Tribunal ought to
have allowed the Application in its entirety.

1
(1979) 2 SCC 286
2
(2013) 3 SCC 73

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019



11. The learned Additional Government Advocate would
submit that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is
justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is
no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The learned
Additional Government Advocate submits that the Tribunal
ought not to have interfered with the order of dismissal and
ordered reinstatement of the Petitioner by imposing a penalty of
withholding one increment with cumulative effect.

12. The learned Additional Government Advocate
further submits that the Tribunal's order imposing a penalty of
withholding one increment with cumulative effect and treating
the period from the date of dismissal till the date of
reinstatement as dies non does not call for interference. In
support of his contentions, learned Additional Government
Advocate would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
3
Court in the case of Union of India vs P. Gunasekaran , to
contend that the Tribunal or the Courts cannot re-appreciate
the evidence in exercise of its power of judicial review under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further

3
AIR 2015 SCC 545

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


argued that the Courts cannot go into the proportionality of the
punishment order so long as the order of punishment does not
shock the conscience of the Court. Therefore, the learned
Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Writ
Petition is liable to be rejected.

13. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the
Respondent and perused the documents made available on
record.

14. It is appropriate to consider the scope of judicial
review relating to the proceedings of the departmental enquiry
and the order of punishment imposed on the delinquent
employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a plethora of cases,
has succinctly prescribed the parameters for exercising judicial
review by the Tribunal or the High Courts in disciplinary
proceedings or issues arising out of such proceedings. In
4
Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran , the contours prescribed
by the Apex Court for judicial review by the Tribunal or the High
Court at para No.13 are as under -

4

[(2015) 2 SCC 610]

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


‘13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
case the same has been conducted in accordance with
law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on
which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment
unless it shocks its conscience.'



15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka
5
vs N. Gangaraj held that the scope of judicial review is very
limited. It is useful to extract the observations made
thereunder as follows:
“9. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, a three-
Judge Bench of this Court has held that the High Court is
not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant.
It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held
by an authority competent in that behalf, and according
to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether
the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court
held as under:
‘7. …..The High Court is not constituted in a
proceeding under e Article 226 of the Constitution a
court of appeal over the decision of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against a public
servant: it is concerned to determine whether the
enquiry is held by an authority competent in that
behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed

5

[(2020) 3 SCC 423]

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural
justice are not violated. Where there is some
evidence, which the authority entrusted with f the
duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support the conclusion
that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it
is not the function of the High Court in a petition for
a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and
to arrive at an independent finding on the
evidence.'
10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, again a
three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that power of
judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that
the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct în the eyes of the court. The court/tribunal in its
power of judicial review does not act as an appellate
authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as
under:
'12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision but a review of the manner in which the
decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant
to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment
and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye
of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on
charges of misconduct by a public servant, the
Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether
the inquiry was held by a competent officer or
whether rules of natural justice are complied with.
Whether the findings or conclusions are based on
some evidence, the authority entrusted with the
power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion.
But that finding must be based on some evidence.
Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor
of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein,
apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the
authority accepts that evidence and conclusion
receives support therefrom, the disciplinary

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in
its power of judicial review does not act as
appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence
and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where
the authority held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the
rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory
rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion
or finding be such as no reasonable person would
have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may
interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and
mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the
facts of each case.’
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole
judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the
appellate authority has co-extensive power to
reappreciate the evidence or the nature of
punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict
proof of legal evidence and findings on that
evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or
reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be
canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of
India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at SCR p. 728,
AIR pp. 368-369 that if the conclusion, upon
consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from
patent error on the face of the record or based on
no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be
issued.'
11. In High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, this
Court held that interference with the decision of
departmental authorities is permitted if such authority
had held proceedings in violation of the principles of
natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations
prescribing the mode of such enquiry while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was
held as under:

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


'16. The Division Bench 10 of the High Court seems
to have approached the case as though it was an
appeal against the order of the
administrative/disciplinary authority of the High
Court. Interference with the decision of
departmental authorities can be permitted, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution if such authority had held proceedings
in violation of the principles of natural justice or in
violation of statutory regulations prescribing the
mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the
authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to
the evidence and merits of the case, or if the
conclusion made by the authority, on the very face
of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no
reasonable person could have arrived at such a
conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above.
But we cannot overlook that the departmental
authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee
of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if
the enquiry has been properly conducted. The
settled legal position is that if there is some legal
evidence on which the findings can be based, then
adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not
a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a
writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution.'
12. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand
Nalwayall, this Court held that the courts will not act as
an appellate court and reassess. the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that
another view is possible on the material on record. If the
enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings
are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the
evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be
ground for interfering with the findings in departmental
enquiries. The Court held as under:
'7. It is now well-settled that the courts will not act
as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led
in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the
ground that another view is possible on the
material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly
and properly held and the findings are based on

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence
or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be
grounds for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not
interfere with findings of fact recorded in
departmental enquiries except where such findings
are based on no evidence or where they are clearly
perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see
whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have
arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the
material on record. The courts will however
interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if
principles of natural justice or statutory regulations
have been violated or if the order is found to be
arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on
extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham12
and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana13,
High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil.)


16. In the case of GE Power India Limited vs. A.
6
Aziz , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“12. We have considered the rival submissions and
are of the view that the proceedings of the enquiry which
was found to be in order vide award of the Tribunal did
not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise
of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. In fact the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
was right in contending that there is not even a pretence
of recording a finding of any jurisdictional error or
violation of natural e justice or error of law apparent on
the face of the record. What has been done is actually re-
appreciation of evidence and on the basis of the some
evidence led, different conclusions are sought to be
drawn. It is not also a case where any relevant evidence
has been ignored or any inadmissible evidence taken into

6

[(2021) 13 SCC 243]

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


account but that on the basis of some evidence
scrutinized, another conclusion is sought to be urged.
This, in our view, was impermissible.
13. We have also carefully gone through the
enquiry report and the evidence which formed the basis of
the same as also the award of the Labour Court even
though we were not called upon to do so in the
proceedings in which we are examining the case. We find
that the manner of conduct of the departmental enquiry
was in accordance with law and the award of the Labour
Court is unassailable as it is based on proper appreciation
of evidence.”


17. Reiterating the law declared earlier, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Another
7
vs. K.S.Vishwanath has observed as under:
“17. From the impugned judgment and order¹ passed by
the High Court it appears that the High Court has dealt
with and considered the writ petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the
decision of the Bank/management dismissing the
delinquent officer as if the High Court was exercising the
powers of the appellate authority. The High Court in
exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has reappreciated the evidence on
record which otherwise is not permissible as held by this
Court in a catena of decisions.”


18. Similarly, in the case of Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) and Others vs. Ajai Kumar

7

[(2022) 15 SCC 190]

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


8
Srivastava , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made
observations at paragraphs 24, 25 and 28 as under:
“24. It is thus settled that the power of
judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an
evaluation of the decision-making process and not
the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of
conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the
proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in
any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of the statutory rules
prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever
reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of
the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are
perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record
or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could
be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review
cannot be extended to the examination of
correctness or reasonableness of a decision of
authority as a matter of fact.
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the
alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court
is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the
competent authority;
(ii) whether the rules of natural justice are
complied with;

8
[(2021) SCC 612

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


(iii) Whether the findings or conclusions are
based on some evidence and authority has
power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact
or conclusion.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its
jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article
136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the
findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry
proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity
i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or
where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably
and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings
and so long as there is some evidence to support the
conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the
same has to be sustained.”

The contours of judicial review are therefore well settled that
the Tribunal or Courts, while exercising their jurisdiction, cannot
indulge in or arrogate to themselves re-appreciation of
evidence, deliberate adequacy of evidence, or contemplate
proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of
the Court. Nonetheless, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also
held that in a given case where there is violation of principles of
natural justice or where it is a case of no evidence or the
punishment imposed is shocking, under those circumstances,
the Tribunal or the Courts could interfere, in rare and
exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019



19. The case at hand must be seen through the
spectrum of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, as referred to supra . Having said so, this Court
is mindful that the examination in the present case is primarily
confined to ascertaining whether there is a violation of
principles of natural justice, or whether there is no evidence, or
whether the punishment imposed is shocking .

20. The Articles of charge issued to the Petitioner dated
29.08.2005 is as under:
C£ÀħAzsÀ-1
²æà J¯ï.J¸ï.PÁA§¼É ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ C¢üPÁj,
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjUÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï,
CxÀt EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ
(¹¹J) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1957 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 11 gÀ Cr zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ
¥ÀnÖ.
–
DgÉÆÃ¥À 1 :
²æà J¯ï.J¸ï.PÁA§¼É ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ C¢üPÁj DzÀ
¤ÃªÀÅ F »AzÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ C¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÉ »jAiÀÄ
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjUÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ) «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ
DV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ 2001-02 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è «eÁ¥ÀÄgÀ
vÁ®ÆèQ£À°è ºÀ¤¤ÃgÁªÀj AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀUÉƽ¹gÀÄwÛÃj.
DzÀgÉ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ« ²æêÀÄw ±ÁgÀzÁ¨Á¬Ä ¨Á§Ä w¯Áèöå¼À (©gÁzÀgÀ) ¸Á:
wqÀUÀÄA¢ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ªÀÄPÀuÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀ
d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.116:3 gÀ°è 3.00 JPÀgÉ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è ºÀ¤¤ÃgÁªÀj
¸À®PÀgÀt C¼ÀªÀr¸À®Ä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj.
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£À ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀĪÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀÄ zÁPÀ¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀļÀÄî zsÀÈrÃPÀgÀt ¤ÃrgÀÄwÛÃj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj
d«Ää£À°è zÁ½A¨É ¨ÉøÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ¼É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, zsÀÈrÃPÀj¹gÀÄwÛÃj. F ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr gÀÆ.15538-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ²æêÀÄw ±ÁgÀzÁ ¨Á¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀ
ºÉ¸Àj£Àß°è qÁæ ªÀiÁr CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉ
zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. C®èzÉà ºÀ¤¤ÃgÁªÀj AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£À ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸À°è¹zÀ CfðAiÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À
ªÉÄÃ¯É ²æêÀÄw ±ÁgÀzÁ ¨Á¬Ä JA§ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«AiÀÄ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥ÉÆÃdðj ¸À» ªÀiÁr ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr C¢üPÁgÀ
zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj.
F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ gÀÆ.15538-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß (gÀÆ.ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ
¸Á«gÀzÀ LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ ªÀÄƪÀvÉÛÃAlÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ)
zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ DyðPÀ
¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ C£ÀÄZÉÒÃzsÀ 15, 16 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 349, 250 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ
ºÀ¤¤ÃgÁªÀj AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆa : ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ
£ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1966 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3£ÀÄß G®èAX¹
²¸ÀÄÛPÀæªÀÄPÉÌ UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.”


21. The Enquiry Officer has recorded the evidence of
one Smt. Sharada Bai, in whose favour the subsidy amount
under the Drip Irrigation Scheme is said to have been released
after the Petitioner herein sanctioned the approval. It is
relevant to extract the evidence of Smt. Sharada Bai and the
same is as under:
“£Á£ÀÄ ²æêÀÄw ±ÁgÀzÁ¨Á¬Ä, ¨Á§Ä w¯Áå¼À ¸Á: wqÀUÀÄA¢ F
¢£À 19.06.08 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉýUÉ ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀzÀj
UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.116:03 gÀ°è 4-5 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÀæzÉñÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 2001-
2002 £Éà ¸Á°¤AzÀ F ªÀgÉUÉ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£À
¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj C¼ÀªÀr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè. £ÀªÀÄä d«Ää£À°è 2001-02

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


jAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆÃlUÁjUÉ ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨É¼É¢gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè PÉêÀ® eÉÆüÀ,

PÀqÀ¯É, ¸ÀÆAiÀÄðPÁAw ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨É¼ÉAiÀįÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£ÀUÉ
vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ 15538-00
gÀÆ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè.
f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj
C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀ §UÉÎ §AzÀ vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ gÀZÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀ
vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹zÁUÀ £À£Àß
ºÉÆ®zÀ°è ºÀ¤ ¤ÃgÁªÀj C¼ÀªÀrPÉAiÀiÁUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ
E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzsÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
ºÁUÀÆ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£Á£ÀÄ CPÀëgÀ¸ÀܼÀÄ EzÀÄÝ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÀgÉ CfðAiÀÄ°è ºÉ¨ÉânÖ£À
UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ CfðAiÀįÉè ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆà ºÀZÀѯÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”




22. The witness categorically stated that she has not
raised any horticultural crops and has not claimed or received
Rs. 15,538/- from the Horticulture Department. Indeed, the
said witness was not subjected to cross-examination by the
Petitioner herein, as can be seen from the evidence recorded by
the Enquiry Officer.

23. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on
24.07.2008, upon conclusion of the enquiry, wherein he
specifically stated that the departmental proceedings were
conducted in accordance with law. It is also stated in the report
that the statements of the witnesses recorded would establish
that the charge leveled against the Petitioner has been proved.

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019



24. The Petitioner submits that since the amount has
already been recovered from Sri. S.K. Kamalakara, the
punishment imposed against the Petitioner is unsustainable.

25. In our view, the said contention is untenable
inasmuch as the recovery of money would not absolve the
Petitioner from the charges leveled against him. The charge
levelled against the Petitioner herein is that he released the
subsidy and sanctioned or approved the release of subsidy
without proper verification of the document and satisfying
himself as to the release of amount in favour of the beneficiary
under the Scheme. The fact remains that the Petitioner
approved or sanctioned the subsidy amount without verifying it.

26. The decision relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs J. Ahmed
( supra ) to contend that misconduct does not include acts of
negligence, error of judgment, or innocent mistakes cannot be
accepted. The charge served upon the Petitioner is specific, and
the enquiry established that the Petitioner sanctioned or
approved the subsidy without verifying the documents and

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


simply accepted the proposal submitted by his subordinate for
release of the subsidy amount.

27. The decision relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel in Rajendra Yadav ( supra ), to buttress his argument
that the doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally
placed, even among persons found guilty, has no application to
the case on hand. The Petitioner herein cannot claim equal
treatment inasmuch as the charges levelled against Sri. S.K.
Kamalakara and the charges levelled against the Petitioner are
entirely different, though the charge levelled against the
Petitioner is one of the components of the charge levelled
against Sri. S.K. Kamalakara. It is evident that the Petitioner
was not diligent before approving or sanctioning the subsidy
amount in favour of the alleged beneficiary; later it turned out
that she did not receive the subsidy amount as stated in her
evidence. Equality or equal treatment is a positive concept, and
the benefit conferred on one or a set of people, without legal
basis or justification, cannot multiply and be relied upon as a
principle of parity as declared by the Apex Court.

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019



28. Be that as it may . The Tribunal, having considered
the material facts and the documents, allowed the Application in
part, and the order of dismissal dated 07.09.2012 passed
against the Petitioner herein was quashed, with a direction to
the State Government to reinstate the Petitioner within three
months. In doing so, the Tribunal, indeed, reappreciated the
evidence. It is apposite to indicate that the Tribunal has
exceeded its jurisdiction to interfere with the order of
punishment, by overstepping into the prohibited arena
inasmuch as the Tribunal could not have substituted the order
of punishment, without leaving it open to the Disciplinary
Authority or the Competent Authority to take an appropriate
decision in relation to imposition of the punishment. However,
the said order of the Tribunal is not being disturbed, although it
calls for interference, inasmuch as there is no challenge to the
same by the Respondent-Authorities.

29. Since the Tribunal has already interfered with the
order of dismissal by substituting the order of imposition of
penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect,
we decline to interfere, as we are loath to go into the aspect of

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11162-DB
WP No. 202478 of 2019


CNR: KAHC030033602019


the proportionality of the order of punishment imposed by the
Tribunal. Similarly, the period between the date of dismissal
and the date of reinstatement, which is considered as dies non,
is also not disturbed, as the Tribunal has already taken a lenient
view, which is undeserved, by interfering with the order of
punishment.

30. We find no reason, much less justifiable grounds, to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is hereby rejected .


Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE


SDU
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
CT: AK