SRI. RAJA REDDY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57161-DB
WP No. 31043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683622026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 31043 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJA REDDY
S/O HANUMANTH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
R/AT NEAR NADI CROSS,
DODDAMARABALLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING(SOUTH)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57161-DB
WP No. 31043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683622026
K.R.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY ZONE,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION,
K.R.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.09.2026 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 4407/2026 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57161-DB
WP No. 31043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683622026
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for the
petitioner and learned AGA Sri.Vikas Rojipura for
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition
questioning the order dated 21.09.2026 in Application
No.4407/2026 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the
Tribunal'), whereunder the petitioner's interim prayer to
stay the Government order dated 11.06.2026 imposing
penalty of withholding 4 increments with cumulative effect
and also directing recovery of a sum of Rs.13,62,810/- is
rejected.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for the
petitioner would submit that the respondents had imposed
the same punishment of withholding 4 increments with

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57161-DB
WP No. 31043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683622026
cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of Rs.13,62,810/-
under Government order dated 23.09.2024, which was the
subject matter of Application No.4760/2024 before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal under order dated 06.02.2025
allowed the application and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration to the Disciplinary Authority by de-novo
consideration from the stage of processing the subject
complaint in the manner observed in the said order. It is
submitted that against the said order of the Tribunal dated
06.02.2025 in WP No.4760/2024, the Lokayukta filed writ
petition in WP No.25840/2025 and it is stated that in the
said writ petition interim order was passed on 12.09.2025
staying the order passed by the Tribunal. Subsequent to
staying of the order passed by the Tribunal, the State
again passed order dated 11.06.2026 imposing the same
punishment of withholding 4 increments with cumulative
effect and recovery of Rs.13,62,810/-. Questioning the
said order, the petitioner is before the Tribunal in
Application No.4407/2026 and the petitioner also prayed

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57161-DB
WP No. 31043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683622026
for interim order of stay of the said Government order
dated 11.06.2026. The Tribunal under impugned order by
observing that the petitioner has not made out any prima-
facie ground to grant interim order refused to stay the
Government order against which the petitioner is before
this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that admittedly the order of punishment dated
23.09.2024 imposing the same punishment was set aside
by the Tribunal and the matter is remanded back to the
Upalokayukta. However, when the Lokayukta institution
challenged the same before this Court, this Court granted
interim order of stay of the order of the Tribunal. It is
contended by the learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for the
petitioner that the operation of the said order is only
stayed and by virtue of the interim order, the order of the
Tribunal is not wiped out to pass a fresh order of penalty.
Thus, he would submit that the petitioner has made out a

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57161-DB
WP No. 31043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683622026
prima-facie case and he would pray for allowing the writ
petition.
5. However, learned AGA Sri.Vikas Rojipura is not
in a position to defend the order passed by the Tribunal.
6. Admittedly, the order of penalty dated
23.09.2024 imposing penalty of withholding 4 increments
with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.13,62,810/- is
quashed by order dated 06.02.2025 in Application
No.4760/2024 of the Tribunal. However, the said order is
the subject matter of the writ petition in WP
No.25840/2025 and this Court had stayed the order of the
Tribunal dated 06.02.2025 in Application No.4760/2024.
The stay of an order would only stalls the operation of the
said order and it would not wipe out the entire effect of
the order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shree Chamundi
Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India and Others
reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1 has explained the effect of
an interim order staying the operation of the order and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57161-DB
WP No. 31043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683622026
quashing of an order. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed that quashing of an order results in the
restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the
passing of the order which has been quashed. Further, it is
observed that the stay of operation of an order does not,
however, lead to such a situation. It only means that the
order which has been stayed would not be operative from
the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not
mean that the said order has been wiped out from the
existence. In the instant case, mere stay of order of the
Tribunal dated 06.02.2025 in Application No.4760/2024
quashing the order of penalty, it would not operate from
the date of stay and stay would not mean the order
passed by the Tribunal is no more in existence.
7. Therefore, we are of the considered view that
the decision in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., would aptly
apply to the facts of the present case. In the above
circumstances, we are of the considered view that the
petitioner has made out a prima-facie case. Accordingly,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57161-DB
WP No. 31043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010683622026
the impugned order dated 21.09.2026 in Application
No.4407/2026 passed by the Tribunal is set aside.
Consequently, impugned order bearing No.LO E 52
SeVaaBa 2025 dated 11.06.2026 (Annexure-A16) is
stayed during the pendency of the Application
No.4407/2026 before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of .
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17