01Facts
The petitioner, then Police Inspector at Gangavati Town, faced departmental charges alleging that his failure to gather information and take preventive measures contributed to communal riots on 10 and 11 December 2016.
¶ 2–5, 16–17The inquiry examined 52 witnesses and marked 30 prosecution documents; the petitioner produced six documents.
¶ 2–5, 16–17The Enquiry Officer found the charges partially proved and attributed responsibility to the petitioner for failing to take precautionary measures.
¶ 2–5, 16–17After considering the petitioner’s response to a second show-cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority imposed postponement of one annual increment with cumulative effect on 10 October 2017.
¶ 2–5, 16–17The appeal and review were rejected.
¶ 2–5, 16–17The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s application challenging those decisions, and he then brought this writ petition
¶ 2–5, 16–1702Issues
i.1. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application without properly considering the petitioner’s contentions and the material evidence
¶ 6–8, 21ii.2. Whether the disciplinary findings were unsupported by evidence or otherwise perverse, and whether the inquiry or decision-making process violated natural justice
¶ 6–8, 15–16, 20iii.3. Whether the punishment warranted interference on the ground of disproportionality
¶ 13, 2003Law Applied
Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, judicial review of departmental disciplinary action concerns the fairness and legality of the decision-making process, not a rehearing on the merits or reappraisal of evidence.
¶ 10–13The Court may intervene where, among other grounds, natural justice or prescribed procedure has been violated, the findings are perverse, or they are based on no evidence; strict rules of evidence do not govern departmental inquiries, but the findings must rest on material capable of supporting a reasonable conclusion, rather than conjecture or surmise.
¶ 10–13The Court relied on Union of India v. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610; State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423; GE Power India Ltd. v. A. Aziz, (2021) 13 SCC 243; State Bank of India v. K.S. Vishwanath, (2022) 15 SCC 190; Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612; and Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2893
¶ 10–13The disciplinary inquiry was initiated under Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965/1989
¶ 204Reasoning
The Court found no pleaded denial of a fair opportunity or violation of natural justice.
¶ 15–21The inquiry had considered oral and documentary evidence, including the petitioner’s defence, and the disciplinary, appellate, and reviewing authorities gave reasons for their decisions.
¶ 15–21The record therefore did not present a case of “no evidence” or perversity.
¶ 15–21The authorities’ finding that the petitioner failed to gather information and take preventive measures was supported by the inquiry material; the Court would not reweigh that evidence under Article 226/227.
¶ 15–21Given the circumstances, including Gangavati’s known sensitivity to communal disturbances, the punishment was neither disproportionate nor conscience-shocking.
¶ 15–21The Tribunal had considered the petitioner’s contentions and was justified in rejecting the application
¶ 15–2105Holding
The High Court held that no ground for judicial review was established and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order or the disciplinary decisions.
¶ 20–21The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
¶ 20–21Original Court PDF
SRI BHIMANAGOD BIRADARvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
