Challenges to charge-sheets are limited to jurisdiction and mala fides, not the merits of alleged misconduct.

Sandhya Saraswathi, a government schoolteacher, challenged disciplinary charge articles issued against her, contending that the Deputy Director of Public Instructions lacked authority because the Joint Director had appointed her.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal accepted her contention, quashed charge articles and directed consideration of her promotion; it also quashed a subsequent charge notice.

The State challenged the Tribunal’s orders in these connected writ petitions.

By the time of the High Court proceedings, Saraswathi had been promoted to Headmaster with effect from 9 September 2020, the date her juniors were promoted.

Rule 10A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, permits the Governor or an authority empowered by general or special order to institute disciplinary proceedings, and allows a disciplinary authority competent to impose specified minor penalties to institute proceedings for major penalties as well.

Rule 11 governs the issue of charge articles for major penalties. Schedule II identifies the authorities competent to appoint, impose penalties and hear appeals; for the relevant category of Secondary School Assistant Teachers, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions was the appointing authority and was empowered to impose major penalties, while the Joint Director was the appellate authority.

At the charge stage, review is confined to jurisdictional questions and allegations of mala fides; the merits of the allegations are for the inquiry officer to determine on the evidence.

The Tribunal erred by treating the Joint Director’s appointment of Saraswathi as determinative without applying Schedule II, which made the Deputy Director the competent appointing and disciplinary authority for her category. Rule 10A also supported the authority to institute proceedings.

The Tribunal further exceeded the proper scope of review by assessing whether the alleged conduct amounted to misconduct or insubordination; those questions belonged to the inquiry process, absent a jurisdictional defect or mala fides.

Because W.P. No. 18895 of 2021 was allowed, the Court considered the connected challenge to the later charge notice academic.

It directed that Saraswathi’s promotion not be disturbed until the inquiry under the specified charge articles is concluded, while making the promotion subject to the inquiry’s outcome.

W.P. No. 22238 of 2022 was disposed of as raising no surviving issue in light of the decision in the first petition.