LAIQ PASHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 201791 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI LAIQ PASHA S/O MD. MOINUDDIN,
AGED 66 YEARS,
CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE-1212,
GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION,
BIDAR-585401,
R/O. NO. 9-5-399, MILIND NAGAR,
CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR-585401.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KANTEPPA HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NORTH EASTERN RANGE, KALABURAGI,
POLICE BHAVAN,
KALABURAGI-585103.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BIDAR DISTRICT,
BIDAR-585401.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
(1) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 10.01.2020 IN A. NO: 6550 &
6758/2017, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT
KALABURAGI, A COPY OF WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. PAGE NO:
90 TO 96 AND A. NO: 6550 & 6758/2017
BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR
(2) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the
order dated 10.01.2020 passed in Application
No.6550 and 6758 of 2017 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench (for
short, ‘ the Tribunal ’).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing this writ petition
are as follows:
3. The petitioner was working as a Civil Police Constable
at Gandhi Gunj, Bidar and retired on 19.06.2019.
While he was working such, it was alleged that, on
20.06.2015, at about 12.00 noon, the petitioner and
another came to the Sapna Multiplex at Gumpa,
where the complainant was working as a Supervisor,
took him along with them on a motorcycle,
wrongfully confined him in an under-construction
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
house, robbed of Rs.50/-, cell phone, wallet, ATM
card and abused him in a filthy language, enquired
regarding the whereabouts of his brother
Shivakumar, attacked him on his face, filled petrol
and chilli powder in a syringe and tried to inject upon
him. It is alleged that the petitioner went to offer
namaz and the complainant escaped and lodged a
complaint.
4. Respondent No.4 had initiated an enquiry against the
petitioner on the above allegations on 24.05.2016.
The enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry
submitted a report on 07.01.2017 holding that the
charges leveled against the petitioner are true and
respondent No.4, after issuing a second show-cause
notice, passed an order of imposing withholding of
two annual increments with cumulative effect vide
order dated 23.03.2017.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order,
but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by
order dated 22.06.2017.
6. The petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 22.06.2017
passed by respondent No.3 and also order of
punishment dated 23.03.2017 passed by respondent
No.4 approached the Tribunal in
Application Nos.6550 and 6758 of 2017. The Tribunal
rejected the applications vide order dated
10.01.2020. Hence, this petition.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charges alleged against the petitioner are all false
and frivolous. It is also submitted that the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, after trial in
the criminal case, has held that the prosecution has
failed to prove the case against the petitioner. As
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
such, the punishment imposed is too harsh. Hence,
prays to allow the writ petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and
the charges levelled against the petitioner in criminal
case and in the disciplinary proceedings are one and
the same, so also, the witnesses examined in both
the proceedings are one and the same.
10. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
1
G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others ,
Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar and
2 3
others and Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan . On
these grounds, he submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in rejecting the applications.
1
(2006) 5 SCC 446
2
Civil Appeal No. 5497 of 2025, decided on 23.04.2025.
3
(2024) 1 SCC 175
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
11. Per contra, Smt.Maya T.R., learned Addl.
Government Advocate, submits that the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and
she submits that mere acquittal in a criminal case
does not exonerate the petitioner from the charges
levelled against him in the departmental
proceedings. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss
the petition.
12. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. It is an undisputed fact that a complaint was lodged
against the petitioner and a departmental enquiry
was also conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a
report holding that the charges leveled against the
petitioner are proved. Respondent No.4 has passed
the impugned order of punishment of withholding
two annual increments with cumulative effect, by
order dated 23.03.2017.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
14. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the
judgment of acquittal in S.C. No.238 of 2017 by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar,
who has acquitted the petitioner of the charges
levelled against him and recorded a finding as
follows:
“19. The evidence of PW8 is not
inspiring to convict the accused of
any of the offences leveled against
him. On reading the entire evidence
of the prosecution, the Court is of
the opinion that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt against
the accused.”
15. A c omparison of the points/charges and the
witnesses examined in both criminal case and in the
departmental enquiry are extracted as follows:
Sl.
SC No. 238 of 2017 Departmental enquiry
No.
1. Points : Charges:
Whether the prosecution
proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on
20.06.2015 at about
You DGO Sri. Laiq Pasha
CPC-1212, of Gandhi Ganj
Police Station, along with
another person on
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
12.00 noon, the accused
No.1 and 2 came to
Sapna Multiplex at
Gumpa where the
complainant is working
as Supervisor and asked
him to accompany them,
the accuse and two
others took the
complainant on a
motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA.38H.5708
forcibly towards
Shahapur Gate and
wrongfully confined him
in a under construction
house, in the process,
the accused no.1 and 2
robbed a sum of R.50/-,
cell, phone, purse, ATM
cards and abused him in
filthy language by
enquiring whereabouts of
his brother Shivkumar,
they have also attacked
on his face and they also
filled petrol and chilly
powder in a syringe and
tried to inject upon the
complainant and thereby
the accused have
committed the offence
punishable U/S 341, 342,
384, 323, 504, 506, 397,
392 R/w section 34 of
IPC.
20.06.2015 at about 12.00
noon took one Shri
Basawarajkumar S/o
Babaurao Sherikar, resident
of Olakindi from Sapna
Multiplex to Shahapur Gate,
where you confined him in a
room and assaulted on his
face and threatened his life,
hence, an FIR is lodged
against you in Crime
No.99/2015 under Section
341, 342, 384, 323, 504,
506, 392 R/w section 34 of
IPC.
You being in responsible
position, involved in Criminal
case, hence shown dereliction
of duty and misconduct and
negligence.
2. Evidence :
PW.1-Shivaji
PW.2-Suresh
Mujobuddin
Shankrappa S/o Sharanappa
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
PW.3-Kantaraju
PW.4-Pradeepkumar
PW.5-Basavaraj
PW.6-Gundappa
PW.7-Shaik Umar
PW.8-
Basavarajkumar
PW.9-Shivakumar
PW.10-Madeppa
PW.11-Raghavendra
PW.12-Prakash
Malad
Kanthraj S/o Devputra
Husoor
Basavaraj S/o Manikappa
Sachinkumar S/o N.Ram
Basavarajkumar S/o
Baburao Sherikar
Madeppa S/o Sharanappa
Patil
Shashikala w/o
Baburao Sherikar
S/o Gurunathrao Nilange
16. On perusal of the above, it is clear that PW.8 in the
criminal case is the same witness who was examined
in disciplinary proceedings and also one
Pradeepkumar, Kanthraj and Basavaraj are the same
witnesses who are examined in both the proceedings.
Based on the witnesses examined in the criminal
proceedings after looking into entire records writ
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
petitioner herein who was the accused in criminal
proceedings has been acquitted in S.C No.238/2017
by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge at
Bidar, vide order dated 03.07.2023.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharana
Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar and others in Civil
appeal No.5497 of 2025 , [arising out of SLP(c)
No.9818/2017], held as follows:
"Issue No.2-
The aforesaid discussion on the first issue
seals the fate of the respondents.
However, since arguments were
advanced in respect of this issue too, we
propose to briefly answer the same.
47. While an acquittal in a criminal case
does not automatically entitle the
accused to have an order of setting aside
of his dismissal from public service
following disciplinary proceedings, it is
well-established that when the charges,
evidence, witnesses, and circumstances
in both the departmental inquiry and the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
criminal proceedings are identical or
substantially similar, the situation
assumes a different context. In such
cases, upholding the findings in the
disciplinary proceedings would be unjust,
unfair, and oppressive."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the exposition of
law recorded in the cases of G.M.Tank and Ramlal
v. State of Rajasthan ( supra ), and further held in
paragraph Nos.48 and 50, which read as follows:
"48. To assess the degree of similarity
between the charges, evidence,
witnesses, and circumstances in the
disciplinary and criminal proceedings, it is
indeed crucial to review the materials
placed before the Court where such an
issue arises. However, we regret,
absence of the departmental file has
disabled us from looking into the same.”
x x x x
"50. The judgment acquitting the
appellant reveals that the prosecution
"miserably failed to prove its case beyond
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
reasonable doubt" as both the informant
and PW-2 refused to identify the
appellant in Court. This discussion
confirms that the appellant's acquittal
was based not on mere technicalities. In
Ram Lal (supra), this Court held that
terms like "benefit of doubt" or
"honourably acquitted" should not be
treated as formalities. The Court's duty is
to focus on the substance of the
judgment, rather than the terminology
used.”
19. On careful consideration of the entire material on
record, we are of a view that the Tribunal has
committed an error in dismissing the application.
20. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the
impugned order, based on the proposition of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above.
21. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following order:
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10707-DB
WP No. 201791 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030065092024
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed .
(ii) The impugned order dated
10.01.2020 passed in Application
Nos.6550 and 6758 of 2017 by the
Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Kalaburagi, is set aside .
(iii) Consequently, Application Nos.6550
of 2017 and 6758 of 2017 are
allowed .
(iv) The impugned order dated
22.06.2017 vide Annexure-A8 and
order dated 23.03.2017 vide
Annexure-A6 are hereby quashed .
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
RK Ct:pk
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10