Karnataka HC Rejects Police Officers’ Bid To End Departmental Probe Despite Criminal Discharge, Sets 4-Month Deadline

Gowri Shankar and another officer sought a direction from the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) to complete a joint departmental inquiry.

On 19 October 2023, the Tribunal directed the State to conclude the inquiry within six months. The State challenged that direction in W.P. No. 2237/2025.

In connected petitions, Gowri Shankar and Shreedhar E.B. challenged the Tribunal’s refusal to quash the departmental proceedings and articles of charge dated 7 March 2024. They relied, among other things, on their discharge in criminal proceedings concerning the same allegations and on the CBI’s withdrawal of its recommendation for regular departmental action.

The charges included allegations concerning the handling of complaints against IMA and alleged illegal gratification.

Under Articles 226 and 227, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice ordinarily is not quashed at the initial stage; intervention may be warranted where, for example, the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction or the notice is wholly illegal.

Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, states that a charge-sheet ordinarily does not itself infringe a right and that a challenge is generally premature.

Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, similarly cautions against routine quashing and recognises that delay may justify intervention where it causes prejudice, assessed with the gravity of the charge and other relevant circumstances.

Criminal discharge or acquittal does not, by itself, bar separate departmental proceedings; the departmental standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The CBI’s recommendation regarding departmental action was recommendatory and did not bind the Disciplinary Authority.

The officers did not establish that the authority issuing the charges lacked competence or jurisdiction, and their principal grounds depended on the criminal discharge and the asserted absence of a role in the investigation—matters the Court considered premature to determine before evidence was recorded in the departmental inquiry.

Applying the cited principles, the Court held that neither the criminal outcome nor the CBI’s withdrawn recommendation prevented the Disciplinary Authority from proceeding on available material; the officers could contest the allegations before the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.

As to the State’s challenge, the State was not an aggrieved party merely because it had been directed to complete the inquiry; if more time was required, it could have sought an extension from the Tribunal. The Additional Chief Secretary sought four months, which the Court granted.

It directed the State authorities to complete the inquiry within four months from the officers’ appearance before the Enquiry Officer, directed the officers to appear on 4 November 2026 at 11:00 a.m. at a venue to be communicated to them, and left all parties’ contentions open before the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.