THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, vs SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.L.,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24939 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA STATE, NO.2,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
COMMUNICATION, LOGISTICS AND
MODERNIZATION, NO.1,
M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4.
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
WIRELESS, NO.1,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR. L.,
S/O. LATE B.V. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (WIRELESS)
RETIRED) R/AT. NO.897,
13TH MAIN, SRINIVASANAGAR,
2ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI,
1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 050.
2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
(RECRUITMENT),
C.I.D. UNIT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO ORDER DATED 12.11.2024 IN
APPLICATION NO. 1839/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
AND ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.11.2024 IN
APPLICATION NO.1839/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU,VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
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
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Aggrieved by the findings given by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru through orders
in Application No.1839/2024 dated 12.11.2024, the State
filed this writ petition. Respondent approached the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru
through the aforementioned application seeking the
Tribunal to quash the order bearing No.HD 62 PoSiPa 2019
dated 28.02.2023 passed by the petitioner herein and to
direct the petitioner herein and other concerned
authorities to settle his pension and other retirement

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
benefits. Tribunal allowed the application and thereby set
aside the impugned order and consequently directed the
concerned to make good the respondent all financial
benefits to which he is legally entitled to. Aggrieved by the
decision thus rendered, the State is before this Court.
2. The version of the petitioner as per the material
available on record is that the respondent is guilty of
insubordination by violating the standing instructions
issued by the higher officials in respect of regularization of
the promotion of 140 Assistant Sub Inspectors who were
working under Rule 32 of KCSR and transferring one
Sri.R.B.Chowdri, Head Constable (General) from Tumakuru
District to Vijayapura District.
3. The matrix of the issue as per the material
available on record is that the respondent worked as
Superintendent of Police (Wireless) from 29.09.2016 till
the date of his superannuation i.e., 30.09.2018. While
officiating his duties thus, he regularized the promotion of

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
140 Assistant Sub Inspectors (Wireless) who were placed
independent charge under Rule 32 KCSRs. Respondent
regularized the promotions violating the instructions
issued by the higher officials. On that, a charge memo was
issued against the respondent. Departmental Enquiry was
conducted and basing on the report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer, second show cause notice was issued and
thereafter the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of
forfeiting 10% of the pension of the respondent for a
period of 5 years. The order of penalty was challenged
before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the
application filed and had set aside the order of penalty.
4. Heard learned AGA Sri.Vikas Rojipura for the
petitioners.
5. Making his submission on the merits of the
matter, learned AGA contended that no Court or Tribunal
shall interfere with the findings in the departmental
enquiry unless those findings are found to be perverse.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
The power of the Tribunal to review the decision of the
Disciplinary Authority is limited. Respondent failed to
follow the instructions issued by the higher authorities in
regularizing the promotion of 140 Assistant Sub
Inspectors. The regularization resulted in cascading effect
on the service conditions of other employees working in
the same cadre. Departmental Enquiry was conducted as
contemplated under law and thereafter following due
procedure, as the respondent was found guilty of
dereliction of duties and insubordination, penalty was
imposed. Therefore, Tribunal ought not to have interfered
with the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority.
However, the Tribunal had set aside the order of penalty
which is unjustifiable. Learned Additional Government
Advocate thereby seeks to allow the writ petition and
thereby set aside the impugned order.
6. As per the version of respondent, the posts of
Assistant Sub Inspectors in Wireless wing were 100%
promotional posts. He acted according to the Cadre and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
Recruitment Rules which were in force and being an
appointing authority, he issued orders of promotion. He
never misused his power nor has shown dereliction of
duties. Even it is not the case of the petitioners that he
has issued promotions through illegal way or expecting or
accepting any official or unofficial favour from those
Assistant Sub Inspectors or had gained anything
whatsoever through giving such promotions. He further
contended that from the initial stage of receipt of Articles
of Charge, he was requesting the Enquiry Officer to
examine concerned officers who can speak about the
procedure followed and the things went on. However, they
were not examined. That apart during the course of
enquiry, he sought to examine those officials i.e.,
Sri.B.P.Suresh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police
(Wireless), Headquarters (Retired) and Smt.Isha Panth,
IPS, the then Deputy Inspector of Police (Wireless) as
defence witnesses. However, Enquiry Officer without
giving opportunity to examine those officials, concluded

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
the enquiry and submitted his report. He further
contended that even in the enquiry report there is no
mention that he violated any rules or regulations.
7. During the course of enquiry, 2 witnesses were
examined i.e., Pw.1-Smt.S.Parvathi and Pw.2-
Smt.Seethalakshmi. Their evidence and the documents
produced formed basis for the Enquiry Officer to submit
his report against the respondent herein. Tribunal
discussed at length with regard to the evidence of Pws 1
and 2. Tribunal observed that Pws 1 and 2, whatever the
questions put to them and suggested to them during the
course of cross examination, they said "yes" and thereby
admitted the version of the defence. For the question
asked to Pws 1 and 2 if the respondent is going to retire
within 6 months is there any bar that he should not give
promotions, they could not show any relevant rule under
the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Tribunal made an
observation that the Enquiry Officer mainly relied upon the
examination-in-chief of Pws 1 and 2 and he totally ignored

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
the cross examination part of Pws 1 and 2. Also, as earlier
indicated even it is not the case of the petitioners that the
respondent has no power to give promotions or that the
promotions affected are in violation of the Rules and
Regulations or that the 140 Assistant Sub Inspectors
(Wireless) are not entitled for such promotions. Deviating
with the oral instructions issued, does not amount to
dereliction of duties if the decision taken is in consonance
with the Rules and Regulations governing the field and
within the exercise of power given under the Statute.
8. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal
did not err in setting aside the penalty imposed and the
consequential relief granted to the respondent. Thus, we
ultimately hold that there are no merits in this writ
petition.
9. Resultantly, the following:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58255-DB
WP No. 24939 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010543782026
ORDER
dismissed
Writ Petition is .
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3