THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA vs SRI GOWRI SHANKAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT


AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO.2237/2025 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.4409/2025 (S-KSAT) AND
WRIT PETITION NO.16726/2025 (S-KSAT)

IN WP NO. 2237/2025

BETWEEN:

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE SERVICES)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)


AND:

SRI GOWRI SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH
WORKING AS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
CEN POLICE STATION, EAST DIVISION
ST
1 FLOOR, ABOVE SHIVAJINAGAR P.S.,










Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


SULTHAGUNTA, SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560051.

ST
R/AT NO.121, 1 FLOOR,
TH ND
4 MAIN, 2 CROSS,
SADANANDANAGAR
NGEF EAST LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560038.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R SWAROOP ANAND, ADV. FOR R1)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO.3742/2023 DATED 19.10.2023 MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-A AND B) CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION
NO.3742/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.


IN WP NO. 4409/2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. GOWRI SHANKAR
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
CEN POLICE STATION,
ST
EAST DIVISION, 1 FLOOR,
ABOVE SHIVAJINAGARA P.S.
SULTHANGUNTA, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 051.

ST TH
R/AT NO.121. 1 FLOOR, 4 MAIN,
ND
2 CROSS, SADANANDANAGAR,
NGEF EAST LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560038.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SWAROOP ANAND R., ADV.)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025




AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
AND ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 IN APPLICATION NUMBER 5084/2024
PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE (LD. TRIBUNAL), PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A AS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.


IN WP NO. 16726/2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHREEDHAR E.B.
S/O LATE BOMMAIH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION,
NO.60, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560025

R/AT T5, ELEGANT PALACE,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


ST
1 CROSS, HARSHA LAYOUT,
YALACHENAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560078.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R SWAROOP ANAND, ADV.)


AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
AND ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22/01/2025 IN APPLICATION NO.5537/2024 PASSED
BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
(LEARNED TRIBUNAL), PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A AS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS, 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

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Since in the above batch of writ petitions, the
petitioners and respondents are one and the same and the
issue relates to the departmental enquiry proceedings
against the petitioners, all the petitions are taken up
together and disposed of by this common order.

2. In W.P.No.2237/2025, the State represented by
Secretary, Home Department and Director General and
Inspector General of Police are before this Court,
questioning the order dated 19.10.2023 in Application
No.3742/2023 C/w. Application No.3746/2023 passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore
(for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal directed
the petitioners herein to conclude the joint enquiry
proceedings against the respondents as early as possible
but not later than six months from the date of receipt of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


copy of the order, with the co-operation of the
respondents-DGOs.

3. In W.P.No.4409/2025 as well as
W.P.No.16726/2025, the petitioners are before this Court
challenging the common order dated 22.01.2025 in
Application No.5084/2024 C/w. Application No.5337/2024
passed by the Tribunal, whereunder their challenge to the
articles of charge dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure-A14 and
Annexure-10 respectively) to show cause notice as well as
Government order 17.10.2020 initiating the departmental
proceedings is rejected.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, in
W.P.No.2237/2025 the respondents approached the
Tribunal with a prayer for a direction to the petitioners
herein to take decision on the reply/explanation and
conclude the joint departmental enquiry within an outer
time frame of three months. The Tribunal under the
impugned order dated 19.10.2023 directed the petitioners

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


herein to conclude the joint enquiry proceedings as early
as possible but not later than six months with the co-
operation of the DGOs. As the petitioners herein could not
conclude the enquiry within the time fixed by the Tribunal,
the respondents filed contempt petition in
CTA.No.460/2024 before the Tribunal. When the Tribunal
took coercive steps against the petitioners, the petitioners
filed the present writ petition questioning the order dated
19.10.2023 in Application Nos.3742/2023 C/w.
3746/2023.

5. In W.P.No.4409/2025 as well as
W.P.No.16726/2025 the petitioners approached the
Tribunal questioning the initiation of enquiry as well as
subsequent articles of charge dated 07.03.2024 on the
ground that the petitioners have been discharged of the
identical charge in the criminal proceedings under
judgment dated 15.07.2024, which is confirmed by this
Court and also urging several other grounds. However, the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


Tribunal declined to quash the articles of charge,
observing that mere issuance of articles of charge itself
would not give cause of action to the petitioners to
question the articles of charge and that the standard of
proof required in a departmental proceedings is
preponderance of probabilities. Questioning the said order
of the Tribunal, the DGOs i.e., petitioners are before this
Court in W.P.No.4409/2025 and W.P.No.16726/2025.

6. Heard Learned counsel Sri.Swaroop Anand.R.,
for petitioners in W.P.Nos.4409/2025 and 16726/2025 and
respondent in W.P.No.2327/2025 and learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for petitioners in
W.P.No.2237/2025 and respondents in
W.P.Nos.4409/2025 and 16726/2025. Perused the entire
writ petition papers.

7. This Court by order dated 12.10.2026 directed
the first petitioner in W.P.No.2327/2025 – the Principal
Secretary, Home Department (Police Services) to file an

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


affidavit as to how the State is aggrieved by the impugned
order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
at Bengaluru dated 19.10.2023 in Application No.3742/2023
and Application No.3746/2023. The Additional Chief
Secretary to Government, Home Department Sri.Rajender
Kumar Kataria, I.A.S., is before the Court and has filed
detailed affidavit dated 15.10.2026. The same is taken on
record.

8. Learned counsel Sri.Swaroop Anand.R., for
petitioners in W.P.Nos.4409/2025 and 16726/2025 would
submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in
dismissing petitioners' challenge to the articles of charge
dated 07.03.2024. Learned counsel would submit that the
main allegation and charge against the petitioners is that
while they were working at Commercial Street Police
Station, they received many complaints/petitions against
IMA (I-Monetary Advisory Pvt. Ltd.) and without making
any proper enquiry into the allegations made in those

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


complaints/petitions it was shown in the register as
enquired and closed. Likewise, there are seven charges
against the petitioners. The allegation also includes
demanding and accepting illegal gratification of
Rs.50,00,000/- for taking action against one Janashree, a
Kannada Channel on the complaint of IMA.

9. Be that as it may. Learned counsel Sri.Swaroop
Anand.R., would submit that the basis for framing the
articles of charge is filing of charge sheet against the
petitioners and petitioners are discharged by judgment
dated 15.07.2024 in Special Case No.1055/2019 of the
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and
Judgment dated 20.09.2024 in Special Case No.1055/2019
on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru respectively, which is confirmed by this
Court in criminal petition. It is the specific contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners
are discharged based on the same allegation, departmental

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


enquiry proceedings could not have been initiated. When the
basis itself is quashed, there is no material to initiate the
department proceedings. Further, on facts, learned counsel
Sri.Swaroop Anand.R., would submit that the enquiry or
investigation in respect of IMA was not entrusted to the
petitioners. With the above, learned counsel placed reliance
on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
30.01.2024 in W.P.No.9642/2020 (P.V.Rudrappa vs.
The State of Karnataka and Another) .

10. In addition, insofar as W.P.No.16726/2025 is
concerned, it is submitted that there is no material or any
allegation attributable to the petitioner therein, as he
obtained the legal opinion and thereafter concluded the
proceedings. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the writ
petitions by quashing the articles of charge insofar as
petitioners are concerned. Learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that the CBI had withdrawn the

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


recommendation made for RDA under letter dated
08.06.2022.

11. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura would submit
that the Application as well as writ petitions are
premature. Mere issuance of articles of charge would not
give rise to any cause of action to challenge the articles of
charge, unless any adverse order is passed against the
petitioners. Further, learned Additional Government
Advocate would submit that acquittal in a criminal
proceedings or discharge in a criminal proceedings would
not bar the Disciplinary Authority or the State from
initiating departmental enquiry proceedings.

12. Further, learned Additional Government
Advocate would submit that the appreciation of material in
a departmental proceedings is entirely different. Learned
Additional Government Advocate submits that the
evidence required in a criminal proceedings is strict proof

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


of evidence, whereas in a departmental proceedings it is
preponderance of probabilities. It is too premature to say
that the petitioners have not played any role in the
investigation or in closing the proceedings. Only on placing
the material by the Disciplinary Authority, the role of the
petitioners would be known. Therefore, he would submit
that it is too premature at this stage to question the
articles of charge.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of all the three writ petition papers, we are
of the considered opinion that the State as well as the
petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with
the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

14. Insofar as W.P.No.16726/2025 as well as
W.P.No.4409/2025, the subject matter is the articles of
charge dated 07.03.2024. Articles of charge could be
challenged or the Court or the Tribunal could entertain the
challenge to the articles of charge only if it is shown that

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


the authority which issued the articles of charge is
incompetent; or has no jurisdiction; or if it is established
that the same is issued with malafide intention. It is not
the case of the petitioners herein that the Authority which
issued the articles of charge is incompetent to issue
articles of charge against the petitioners. The ground on
which the articles of charge is questioned are that the
petitioners are discharged of the same allegation or charge
in Special Case No.1055/2019 by the learned City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by judgment dated 15.07.2024
and 20.09.2024 respectively.

15. Mere discharge or acquittal of a person from
criminal proceedings would not bar or prohibit the
Disciplinary Authority or the State from initiating separate
departmental proceedings on the same allegations or
complaint. The charges in the departmental enquiry or the
proceedings are to be proved by placing cogent material
and the standard of proof required in a departmental

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


proceedings is preponderance of probabilities and not the
strict proof of evidence. Therefore, unless the evidence is
recorded and parties are given opportunity to produce
material in their favour, it would be too early or too
premature to come to a conclusion that the petitioners
have not committed any misconduct. Whether the
petitioners were entrusted with the enquiry or
investigation of complaints in respect of IMA is a matter
for Enquiry Officer to find out. At this stage, this Court
would not be in a position to go into the said contention.

16. In UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS.
KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA [(2006) 12 SCC 28]
, the
Hon'ble Apex Court was considering whether the High
Court was justified in quashing charge memo at the initial
stage and at paragraphs 13 to 16, has held as follows:
“ 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions
of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a
charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive
Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh
Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


331] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
[(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR
2004 SC 1467] , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr.,
Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639] , State of U.P. v.
Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3
ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition
should not be entertained against a mere show-
cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage
the writ petition may be held to be premature. A
mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not
give rise to any cause of action, because it does not
amount to an adverse order which affects the rights
of any party unless the same has been issued by a
person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite
possible that after considering the reply to the
show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the
authority concerned may drop the proceedings
and/or hold that the charges are not established. It
is well settled that a writ petition lies when some
right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause
notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of
anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some
punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party
is passed, that the said party can be said to have
any grievance.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary
jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article
226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing
a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and
exceptional cases the High Court can quash a
charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to
be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other
reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the
High Court should not interfere in such a matter.”

17. In SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND
OTHERS VS. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA [(2012) 11
SCC 565] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the
law does not permit quashing of charge sheet in a routine
manner in a departmental proceedings. The relevant
portions at paragraphs 8, 10 to 12 reads as follows:
“ 8. The law does not permit quashing of
charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the
delinquent employee has any grievance in respect
of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing
a representation and wait for the decision of the
disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-
sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary
proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings,
the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet
after considering the gravity of the charge and all
relevant factors involved in the case weighing all
the facts both for and against the delinquent
employee and must reach the conclusion which is
just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide State of
M.P. v. Bani Singh [1990 Supp SCC 738 : 1991 SCC
(L&S) 638 : (1991) 16 ATC 514] , State of Punjab
v. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570 : 1995
SCC (L&S) 541 : (1995) 29 ATC 546] , Registrar,
Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey [(1995) 3
SCC 134 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 648 : (1995) 29 ATC
538] , Union of India v. Ashok Kacker [1995 Supp
(1) SCC 180 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 374 : (1995) 29
ATC 145] , Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L.
Srinivasan [(1996) 3 SCC 157 : 1996 SCC (L&S)
686 : (1996) 33 ATC 745] , State of A.P. v. N.
Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154 : 1998 SCC (L&S)
1044 : AIR 1998 SC 1833] , Food Corporation of
India v. V.P. Bhatia [(1998) 9 SCC 131 : 1998 SCC
(L&S) 466] , Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan [1999
SCC (L&S) 646] , M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India
[(2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919 : AIR
2006 SC 3475] , P.D. Agrawal v. SBI [(2006) 8 SCC
776 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 43] and Govt. of A.P. v.

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


V. Appala Swamy [(2007) 14 SCC 49 : (2009) 1
SCC (L&S) 440] .)

10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie
against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the
reason that it does not give rise to any cause of
action. It does not amount to an adverse order
which affects the right of any party unless the same
has been issued by a person having no
jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when
some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-
sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only
when a final order imposing the punishment or
otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it
may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a
charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary
proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the
court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma
[(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987
SC 943] , Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh
Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327] , Ulagappa v.
Commr. [(2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SC 3603
(2)] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
[(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004
SC 1467] and Union of India v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S) 304] .)

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra
[(2010) 13 SCC 311 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC
pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a
charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of
the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the
charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine
correctness or truth of the charge is the function of
the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v.
Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
768 : (1994) 27 ATC 200] .

12. Thus, the law on the issue can be
summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet
cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge
as it does not adversely affect the rights of the
delinquent unless it is established that the same
has been issued by an authority not competent to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the
disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be
quashed at an initial stage as it would be a
premature stage to deal with the issues.
Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the
grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a
belated stage or could not be concluded in a
reasonable period unless the delay creates
prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of
alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken
into consideration while quashing the proceedings.”

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


18. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that the CBI by letter dated 08.06.2022 recommended for
withdrawal of RDA against the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.16726/2025 and 4409/2025. Therefore, he
submits that the Disciplinary Authority could not have
initiated the departmental proceedings. The letter of the
CBI dated 08.06.2022 withdrawing recommendation for
RDA against petitioners is only recommendatory. It would
not bind the Disciplinary Authority. In its wisdom and if
there is enough material to initiate the proceedings, it
could initiate departmental proceedings based on the
available material. The petitioners would get an
opportunity in the departmental proceedings to defend
themselves to and disprove the alleged misconduct.

19. It is to be noticed that the petitioners had
approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.3742/2023 and
3746/2023 seeking for a direction to the petitioners herein
to complete the joint enquiry within a period of six

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


months. On obtaining direction from the Tribunal to
complete the enquiry within six months, it was not open
for the petitioners to question the subsequent articles of
charge which was issued subsequent to the direction
issued by the Tribunal. It is also to be noted that as on the
date the petitioners obtained direction to complete the
enquiry within six months, articles of charges were not
issued and same was not brought to the notice of the
Tribunal either by the applicants or the respondent-State.

20. In W.P.No.2237/2025, the petitioners-State
Authorities are not aggrieved persons. When the petitioners-
State are directed to complete the enquiry within six
months, it is for the State to complete the enquiry as
directed by the Tribunal and if the State is not in a position
to complete the enquiry within the time fixed by the
Tribunal, it was open for the State to approach the Tribunal
seeking extension of time to complete the enquiry. Since the
Tribunal has already directed completion of enquiry within

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


six months, both all the two impugned orders in the above
writ petitions, we deem it appropriate instead of sending the
parties to the Tribunal, to seek extension of time to
complete the enquiry, the Additional Chief Secretary, who is
before the Court, when Court queried about the time
required for completing the enquiry, sought four months
time to complete the enquiry, we extend the time by four
months to complete the enquiry, we extend the time by four
months to complete the enquiry.

21. In the above circumstances, the following:
ORDER
a) W.P.No.2237/2025, W.P.No.4409/2025
and W.P.No.16726/2025 are dismissed.

b) The petitioners in W.P.No.2237/2025 and
respondents in W.P.No.4409/2025 and
W.P.No.16726/2025 – the State
Authorities are directed to complete the
enquiry within four months from the date

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58511-DB
WP No. 2237 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4409 of 2025
WP No. 16726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010058182025


of appearance of the petitioners before the
Enquiry Officer.

c) The petitioners in W.P.No.4409/2025 and
W.P.No.16726/2025 shall appear before
the Enquiry Officer on 04.11.2026 at
11.00 a.m. , at the venue to be informed
to the petitioners.

d) All the contentions of the parties are left
open to be urged before the Enquiry
Officer as well as before the Disciplinary
Authority.




Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20