Disciplinary punishment cannot stand when charges depart from the complaint and lack specific allegations.

The petitioner, a retired Deputy District Project Co-ordinator, was among the education officials named in a complaint to the Karnataka Lokayukta concerning alleged irregularities by private educational institutions in Bidar District.

Following an investigation, the Lokayukta submitted a report alleging misconduct; disciplinary proceedings followed, and the competent authority imposed a penalty withholding 10% of the petitioner’s pension for five years.

The petitioner challenged the penalty before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application on 18 January 2024.

He then filed this writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s decision.

The Court referred to Sections 8, 9, 12(3) and 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, concerning the Lokayukta’s inquiry and reporting process, and to Rule 3(i) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, concerning the alleged misconduct.

It also referred to Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in recounting the entrustment of the inquiry.

The Court’s decision rested on the requirement that disciplinary findings be supported by allegations relevant to the charges and specifically attributable to the employee; it cited no judicial precedents.

The Court found that the complaint related to 2011, whereas the articles of charge concerned the academic year 2012–13, and that the charges were not in terms of the complaint.

It also found that the complaint contained no specific allegations against the petitioner.

Because the Tribunal had not addressed these matters and had affirmed the findings without properly considering the record, the High Court held its decision arbitrary and erroneous.

It also quashed the competent authority’s penalty order dated 31 January 2022 withholding 10% of the petitioner’s pension for five years.