- 1 - WP No.7911/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.7911/2021(S-KSAT) BETWEEN: MR. A. B. ADBUL REHAMAN S/O. LATE ABDUL BASITH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE NO.626 (UNDER COMPULSORY RETIREMENT) YESLURU POLICE STATION SAKALESHPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT RESIDING AT NO.2781 OPP: GOUSIA ANJUMAN CHIPPENAKATTE HASSAN-573 201 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI R. GURURAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANASOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND POLICE INSPECTOR GENERAL SOUTH ZONE MYSURU H.O-570 001 - 2 - WP No.7911/2021 3. THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, A.G.A., FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1233/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-C BY HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGLAURU CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT DATED 01.03.2017 IN NO.O.E.152 Po.si.A.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A11 TO THE APPLICATION PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.34/2015-16 O.Bi.Sam.11/2015-16 AS PER ANNEXURE-A9 TO THE APPLICATION PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONFIRMING THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 29.01.2015 IN No.Sibbandi (1) E.Vi.17/2013-14 O.Bi.31/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A7 TO THE APPLICATION PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO HIS ORIGINAL POST WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 11.03.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND - 3 - WP No.7911/2021 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning order dated 07.12.2020 in Application No.1223/2018 (Annexure-C) passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) confirming the order of compulsory retirement dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure- A11) by modifying the order of dismissal dated 29.01.2015 (Annexure-A7), which was confirmed by appellate order dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure-A9). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Civil Police Constable under third respondent and a charge memo dated 05.03.2011 (Annexure-A2) was issued to the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘Rules, 1965’). In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner was that, a criminal case in Crime No. 269/2011 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC has been registered - 4 - WP No.7911/2021 against the petitioner along with others alleging that by playing fraud against complainant Smt.Puttamma, the petitioner exhibited misconduct and prima-facie it is found that he was involved in a criminal case. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo and not being satisfied with the reply, the Specially Empowered Authority proceeded with the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer and Specially Empowered Authority by report dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure-A3) held that the charges against the petitioner is proved. The petitioner was issued with second show cause dated 17.11.2014 enclosing enquiry report and the petitioner submitted his reply dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure-A6) to the second show cause notice. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority – the third respondent by order dated 29.01.2015 (Annexure-A7) imposed punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal, filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority by order dated 04.06.2015 rejected the appeal, confirming the order of dismissal. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority - 5 - WP No.7911/2021 as well as Appellate Authority, the petitioner submitted revision petition to the State Government. The State Government by order dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure-A11) modified the order of punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. Questioning the order of compulsory retirement, seeking exoneration from the charges, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the afore-stated Application. The Tribunal vide impugned Order dated 07.12.2020, dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Vighneshwar S. Shastri for Sri.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.Vighneshwar S. Shastri for petitioner would contend that the whole enquiry is vitiated since the articles of charge is issued by the - 6 - WP No.7911/2021 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur Sub- division, Sakaleshpur, without authorization. Further, learned senior counsel would contend that Deputy Superintendent of Police has no jurisdiction to issue articles of charge and it is only the Appointing Authority which could issue articles of charge in terms of Rule 6 of Rules, 1965. In that regard, learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1360/2018 DATED 07.06.2021 (SMT.SHASHIKALA.M., VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) as well as order in W.P.No.23204/2021 DATED 01.02.2024 (R.S.MAHADEVAPPA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS). 5. Learned senior counsel would further submit that it is a case of no evidence and further submits that no cogent material is placed on record to prove the charge. The evidence of the witnesses examined, more particularly, the complainant, would indicate that the charge against the petitioner is baseless. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the relevant witness – Sub-Registrar has not - 7 - WP No.7911/2021 been examined. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that in O.S.No.412/2011 there is a clear finding of the Civil Court that the complainant Smt.Puttamma has failed to prove that the sale deed was fraudulently executed by the plaintiff and others. Therefore, he submits that when there is no evidence against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer committed an error in holding that the charges are proved against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would also submit that the statement recorded during the preliminary enquiry was used to impose punishment without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine those statements. Lastly, learned senior counsel contended that the order of the Appellate Authority is cryptic and would not give any reasons. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy would submit that Rule 6 of Rules, 1965 permits framing of charge by the Specially Empowered Authority and in the decisions on which learned senior counsel would place reliance, the order - 8 - WP No.7911/2021 appointing the Specially Empowered Authority was not placed on record. Learned Additional Government Advocate referring to Rule 6(2) of Rules, 1965 submits that Disciplinary Authority or any Authority empowered by it could frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations. Learned Additional Government Advocate places on record order dated 05.01.2012 of the third respondent appointing Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur Sub-Division as Enquiry Authority/Specially Empowered Authority to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner and submits that in view of the empowerment by the Disciplinary Authority, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur Sub-Division had jurisdiction to issue articles of charge. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that strict rules of evidence is not applicable to the departmental enquiries and also that this Court could not go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence on record. Referring to the material on record, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the - 9 - WP No.7911/2021 Disciplinary Authority has proved the charge against the petitioner and taking note of the proportionality and nature of charge, the Government has modified the punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, which needs no interference. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: a) In the facts and circumstances, Whether the articles of charge issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur Sub- Division, Sakaleshpur under Rule 6 of Rules, 1965 is in accordance with law or not? b) Whether the impugned orders require interference at the hands of this Court? 9. Answer to the above points would be in the affirmative and negative respectively, for the following reasons: Articles of charge dated 05.03.2011 (Annexure-A2) is issued by the Enquiry Officer and the Deputy - 10 - WP No.7911/2021 Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur Sub-Division under Rule 6 of Rules, 1965. Rule 6 (1) and (2) of Rules, 1965 which is relevant reads as follows: “6. Procedure for imposing major penalties. – (1) No order imposing on a Police Officer any penalty specified in [sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4-A] shall be passed except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) The Disciplinary Authority or any authority empowered by it in this behalf (hereinafter in this rule referred to as 'specially empowered authority) shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges, together, with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Police Officer and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority or the specially empowered authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. - 11 - WP No.7911/2021 Explanation. – In this sub-rule and in sub-rule (3), the expression "the Disciplinary Authority" shall include the authority competent under these rules to impose upon the Police Officer any of the penalties specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4-A.” …………………… Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6 would state that no Police Officer could be imposed with penalty except after an enquiry. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority or any authority empowered by it (Specially Empowered Authority), shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the enquiry is proposed to be held. In other words, articles of charge could be framed either by the Disciplinary Authority or the authority empowered in that regard by the Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record order dated 05.01.2012 appointing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur Sub- Division as Enquiry Officer and Specially Empowered Authority under Rule 6 of Rules, 1965. The Enquiry Officer-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur - 12 - WP No.7911/2021 Sub-Division was empowered under Rule 6 of 1965 Rules to frame definite charge and as such, the contention of the petitioner that the articles of charge issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur Sub-Division is without authority, is liable to be rejected. 10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in SMT.SHASHIKALA.M and SRI.R.S.MAHADEVAPPA (supra), however, the same would not assist the petitioner in view of the fact that learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record order dated 05.01.2012 of the third respondent appointing Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sakaleshpur Sub-Division as Enquiry Officer/Specially Empowered Authority to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. Moreover, in the decision in R.S.MAHADEVAPPA (supra), Co-ordinate Bench has observed at paragraph (4)(b) that “the language of Rule 6(2) leaves no manner of doubt that it is the Disciplinary Authority who has to frame the Charge Memo; of course, if he wants to delegate the same, he should do - 13 - WP No.7911/2021 it by a specific order, whereupon the other authority can do it. Such a delegation is not forthcoming from the record of proceedings. ……….” 11. In the decision of SMT.SHASHIKALA (supra) also, the respondent-State has not made available the order of appointment of Enquiry Officer/Specially Empowered Authority under Rule 6(2) of Rules, 1965. 12. In the above circumstances, the above decisions relied upon by the petitioner would have no application to the facts of the present case. 13. Learned senior counsel contended that there is no material or evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner. Normally, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not venture to examine the sufficiency of evidence or otherwise. Moreover, strict rules of evidence is not applicable to departmental proceedings and charges could be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case, three authorities have examined the facts and concurrently have - 14 - WP No.7911/2021 held against the petitioner. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the evidence. The evidence or material has been examined by the Disciplinary Authority, First Appellate Authority and the State Government – Revisional Authority. A perusal of the order of punishment passed by the third respondent would indicate the application of mind to entire material on record and the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have also considered the evidence of each witnesses to reach their conclusion. However, taking note of the proportionality, the Revisional Authority modified the order of punishment from that of dismissal to compulsory retirement, which in the facts and circumstances needs no interference. 14. Regardless, we have also gone through the evidence of PW1 and other evidences extracted in the reply to the second show cause notice (Annexure-A6) dated 31.12.2018 and we are of the considered opinion that there are sufficient material to hold the charge proved against the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the - 15 - WP No.7911/2021 petitioner is working in a disciplined Police Department and persons who are working in a disciplined police force are expected to exhibit high degree of discipline. The Disciplinary Authority on examination of the enquiry report has recorded its opinion which reads as follows which could be gathered from the impugned order of punishment (Annexure-A7): “F §UÉÎ E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ PÀqÀvÀ ºÁUÀÆ «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ±ÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ F »AzÉ »j¸ÁªÉ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ UÉÃPÀgÀªÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA:59/03 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 1.29 UÀÄAmÉ PÀÄ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄägÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ ¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄgÀªÀjUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ 3 d£À DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ PÀĪÉA¥ÀÅ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À¨ï jf¸ÀÖgï PÀbÉÃjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄägÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄzÁV £ÀA©PÉ ºÀÄnÖ¹ ๑:4,97,000-00 2 £Éà DgÉÆæ eÉ.Dgï ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgïgÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄägÀªÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ PÀAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹zÉà 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀiÁzÀ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï ¹ÃªÀÄ ¥À«Ãð£ï PÉÆÃA C§Äݯï gɺÀªÀiÁ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA¢¹ ªÉÆøÀ - 16 - WP No.7911/2021 ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ªÀÄlÖªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¨ÉânÖ£À ¸À» ºÁQ¹ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÁªÀ avÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUɹ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ f.Dgï.ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹ 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4£Éà DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÁzÀ J.©.C§ÄݯïgɺÀªÀiÁ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®PÀëäuï EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀævÀåPÀë ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁV PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁr J¯Áè DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ J¸ÀV ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C®èzÉ, ¤ªÀÄä ¸Àé-EZÁÒ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ 1.29 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁ𤹠SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgïgÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹ FUÁUÀ¯Éà £ÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgïgÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀiÁr¹ PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgïgÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉý wêÀiÁð£À ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ£À ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸À» ºÁQzÀÄÝ, ®PÀëät£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁV ¸À» ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄwÛÃj.” 15. Learned senior counsel also contended that the Disciplinary Authority has taken note of the statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry to impose - 17 - WP No.7911/2021 punishment. However, the said contention is not supported by any material. Mere recording that the statement of the witnesses which is recorded during preliminary enquiry indicating their name would not be sufficient to hold that the statements recorded during preliminary enquiry has been used against the petitioner. 16. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms