SMT. SAIRA BANU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

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


AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 20648 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

SMT. SAIRA BANU
W/O SRI SYED MUSHTAQ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER
GOVERNMENT URDU LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
MADIVALA, BANGALURU-68
TH
R/AT NO.180/9, 4 CROSS, B P ROAD,
BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
MADIVALA, BENGALURU-68.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATEESH N.K., ADV. FOR
SRI SRIKANTH M. P., ADV.)


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560001.










Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023


3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
PRIMARY EDUCATION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560001.

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
KALASIPALYA
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-02.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R1-4)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 23.08.2023 PASSED ON APPLICATION NO.6039/2022 BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-C; QUASH THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 25.04.2022
BEARING NO. AA.8/UU.SHI./ DURVARTHANE/DOORU/194/18-19
VIDE ANNEXURE-A36 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner, unsuccessful applicant before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) is before this Court questioning order
dated 23.08.2023 in Application No.6039/2022

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023


whereunder the petitioner's prayer to quash articles of
charge dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure-A36) is rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Sateesh.N.K., for
Sri.Srikanth.M.P., learned counsel for petitioner and
learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.S.C.Deshmukh for respondents. Perused the entire writ
petition papers.

3. The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher
in the Department of Primary and Secondary Education.
The petitioner was issued with articles of charge dated
25.04.2022 (Annexure-A36) alleging unauthorized
absence and not reporting to the duty on revocation of
suspension. It is alleged that the petitioner has remained
unauthorized absence from 23.03.2019 till the date of
issuance of articles of charge i.e. 25.04.2022. The said
articles of charge was the subject matter of above stated
Application No.6039/2022 and the Tribunal under
impugned order dismissed the Application of the petitioner

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023


observing that the Tribunal cannot assume the role of the
Enquiry Officer to ascertain the truth and placing reliance
on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, was of the
opinion that at the threshold, it could not interfere with
the articles of charge. Questioning the said order of the
Tribunal as well as the articles of charge the petitioner is
before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged the
same grounds which were urged before the Tribunal.
Learned counsel would submit that the articles of charges
are issued only to cover up the lapses of the officers and
further he submits that the authorities could not have
insisted the petitioner to report at Kaggalipura, contrary to
the directions issued by the Government. Learned counsel
would submit that the petitioner is not responsible for her
absence from duty at the Lower Primary School,
Kaggalipura. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ
petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023



5. Learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.S.C.Deshmukh would support the order passed by the
Tribunal and would further submit that the petitioner
would get every opportunity before the Enquiry Officer and
it is open for the petitioner to place all material before the
Enquiry Officer. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the
writ petition.

6. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition paper,
we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal as well as impugned articles of
charge dated 25.04.2022.

7. A perusal of articles of charge, it is seen that
allegation against the petitioner is that she has remained
unauthorised absence since 23.05.2019 till the date of
issuance of articles of charge dated 25.04.2022. It is
specifically alleged that the petitioner has failed to report

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023


to duty at the place of posting on revocation of
suspension. It is for the Enquiry Officer to find out as to
whether the petitioner remained unauthorized absence or
whether as contended by the petitioner, the respondent-
authorities could not have insisted the petitioner to report
to duty at Lower Primary school, Kaggalipura. It is a
factual finding which has to be recorded by the Enquiry
Officer based on the material that would be placed before
the Enquiry Officer. At the threshold, the Court cannot sit
and give finding on the factual issues.

8. As contended by the learned Additional
Government Advocate, the petitioner would get every
opportunity before the Enquiry Officer and it is open for
the parties to place on record the material before the
Enquiry Officer.

9. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS VS.
PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA [(2012) 11 SCC 565] , has

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023


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
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

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023


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.
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

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023


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] .)

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

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59686-DB
WP No. 20648 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010480892023


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.”

10. There is no merit in the writ petition and
accordingly writ petition stands rejected .


Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4