Karnataka High CourtAdministrative and Public LawConstitutional Law

Karnataka HC Leaves Teacher’s Absence Charge In Place, Says Inquiry Must Decide If She Had To Report To Kaggalipura

SMT. SAIRA BANUv.STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka HC Leaves Teacher’s Absence Charge In Place, Says Inquiry Must Decide If She Had To Report To Kaggalipura. SMT. SAIRA BANU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to quash the charge memo at the threshold.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order or the charge memo, and rejected the writ petition.

It also directed

The petitioner remained free to place her evidence and arguments before the Enquiry Officer.

01Facts

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, challenged a charge memo dated 25 April 2022 alleging unauthorised absence and failure to report for duty after revocation of her suspension.

¶ 3

She contended that the authorities could not require her to report to the Lower Primary School at Kaggalipura and that she was not responsible for her absence.

¶ 4

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed her application to quash the charge memo, holding that it could not determine the truth of the allegations at that stage.

¶ 5

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 1

The judgment refers to the alleged period of absence as beginning on 23 March 2019 in one passage and 23 May 2019 in another.

¶ 3, 7

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to quash the charge memo at the threshold.

¶ 1, 3, 6

ii.Whether the petitioner’s dispute about the place at which she was required to report for duty could be determined before the departmental inquiry.

¶ 4, 7

03Law Applied

Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, a charge-sheet or charge memo ordinarily should not be quashed before the inquiry, because determining the truth of the allegations is generally the disciplinary authority’s function.

¶ 9

Interference may be warranted in exceptional circumstances, including where the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority; delay may also justify intervention where it causes prejudice, considered alongside the gravity of the charge and other relevant circumstances.

¶ 9

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 1

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s contention that she was not required to report to Kaggalipura raised a factual dispute about the effect of the authorities’ directions and the circumstances of her alleged absence.

¶ 7

The Court held that this dispute should be assessed by the Enquiry Officer on the evidence presented, rather than determined by the Court at the threshold.

¶ 7–8

Applying the principle in Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, the Court found no basis to interfere with either the Tribunal’s decision or the charge memo.

¶ 6, 9

05Holding

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order or the charge memo, and rejected the writ petition.

¶ 6, 8, 10

The petitioner remained free to place her evidence and arguments before the Enquiry Officer.

¶ 8, 10
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT. SAIRA BANUvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment