- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 10870 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M S BUILDING BENGALURU – 560001. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI & SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA) AND: SRI DILIPKUMAR L S/O LAKSHMAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, ALANGUR POST, ALANGURU CROSS, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT NOW DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AND Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 R/AT NO.389/1 A C ABDUL ALI GARDEN, NEAR VENKATEHWARA BEST SCHOOL OF ENGLISH, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJU, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN A.NO-5320/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE KSAT BENGALURU AND B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.NO- 5320/2023 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioners-State Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness or otherwise of order dated 28.06.2024 in Application No.5320/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’), by which, respondent’s application questioning the order of penalty of removal from service is quashed, granting full - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 salary and emoluments with interest at 8% p.a., on the arrears of salary. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent was appointed as Armed Police Constable on 25.04.2007 and he was posted to K.G.F., Kolar District. It is the case of the respondent that he applied for permission to pursue his studies i.e., to complete his B.Ed., course and thereafter, petitioner completed his B.Ed., course. In pursuance to notification for recruitment to Secondary School Assistant Master Grade-II in Education Department, the respondent applied for the post through the head of the office that too, on obtaining no objection certificate dated 18.06.2009. The petitioner was selected as Secondary school Assistant Teacher, Grade-II on 14.06.2010. It is stated that the respondent was relieved from the Superintendent of Police, KGF and directed to report to duty at Second respondent at Y.N. Hosakote School, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 3. More than five years thereafter, the petitioner was issued with articles of charge dated 18.01.2016 under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’) alleging that, while working as Police Constable without prior permission, the respondent had undergone B.Ed, course and thereby misconducted himself. After enquiry, petitioner was imposed with punishment of removal from service under Memorandum dated 23.04.2021 (Annexure-A11). Questioning the same, respondent was before the Tribunal in Application No.5320/2023. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 28.06.2024 allowed the application, quashed the impugned order of removal with all consequential benefits and with a direction to treat the period during which the respondent was out of service as the period spent on duty and that the applicant shall be entitled to avail salary and emoluments with interest at 8% p.a. The said order is the subject matter of the present writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 4. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Saritha Kulkarni and also learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.Shantharaju for respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Saritha Kulkarni would submit that the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the impugned order of removal from service and further it is submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the department which imposed the punishment is not the competent authority and the department in which the respondent has committed misconduct ought to have been conducted enquiry. Learned Additional Government Advocate refers to Rule 16A of CCA Rules and also Rule 252(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and submits that the petitioners did possess authority to initiate enquiry against the respondent subsequent to his re- appointment in respect of any act or conduct during any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 period of his previous service under the Government. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would also invite attention of this Court to paragraph 12 of the order passed by the Tribunal and would submit that the observations made therein that the Disciplinary Authority in department where the respondent allegedly committed misconduct and not in the Education department to which he was appointed subsequently, is contrary to Rule 16A of CCA Rules. It is the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that, in terms of Rule 16A of CCA Rules, Disciplinary Authority of concerned Government servant could initiate Disciplinary proceedings for any act or misconduct committed by such Government servant during his previous department. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal could not have granted full salary for the period during which respondent was out of service and not worked. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would pray for allowing the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Shantharaju for respondent supports the order and submits that there is no allegation against the respondent that he has neglected or exhibited negligence in performance of his duty as Armed Police Constable. Further, he submits that the only allegation is that without prior permission, he has undergone higher studies. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent had sought permission from the department, but the application was kept pending. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed memo on behalf of the respondent dated 18.06.2025 stating that the respondent would forego his arrears of salary for the period during which he was out of service and he prays for reinstating the respondent. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 Whether the Tribunal committed error in allowing the application and in setting aside the order of removal with a direction to the petitioners to pay arrears of salary with interest? 8. Answer to the above point would be that the Tribunal is justified in quashing the order of penalty of removal, but the Tribunal is not justified in granting the arrears of salary during the period for which the respondent was out of service, for the following reasons: Admittedly, the respondent was initially appointed on 25.04.2007 as Armed Police Constable to the KGF, Kolar District. The respondent admittedly pursued his higher studies while he was working as Armed Police Constable. The averment in the application would reveal that during the said period, he was on night duty and without causing any hindrance to the official duty, the respondent completed his B.Ed., course. On his application through the department, he was appointed as Second Division Assistant Teacher, Grade-II under O.M., dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure-A3). More than five years thereafter, petitioner - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 was issued with articles of charge dated 18.01.2016. At the time of applying for the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher, Grade-II post, No Objection Certificate was issued unconditionally. If the Police Department found that the higher study by respondent was unauthorized, it could have denied permission to apply and could have initiated enquiry itself. Admittedly, the articles of charge and institution of enquiry against the respondent under charge memo dated 18.01.2016 is long after respondent’s re-appointment. 9. Rule 16-A of CCA rules reads as follows: “16-A. Provision regarding re appointed Officers. – Where a person who has ceased to be in Government service, due to resignation, abolition of his post, termination of his appointment or any other cause, is re-appointed as a Government Servant, disciplinary proceedings may be taken against him, in his new appointment in respect of any act or conduct during any period of his service under the Government.” 10. Rule 16A of CCA Rules provides for initiation of enquiry against a re-appointed Government servant in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 respect of any act or conduct during any period of his previous service under the Government. Admittedly, prior to his appointment as Secondary School Assistant Teacher, Grade-II in the Education Department, the respondent was working as Armed Police Constable in Police Department. In terms of the Rules, the Tribunal is unjustified in arriving to the conclusion that Education Department has no jurisdiction to initiate enquiry. 11. No material, whatsoever is placed on record to show that there was a report from the Police Department with regard to misconduct of the respondent. Apparently, initiation of enquiry against the respondent appears to have been initiated on a complaint received from one Muniyappa who had also filed FIR against the respondent. Under Rule 16A of CCA Rules, as per the wordings used lucidly suggests that any proceedings against a Government servant who is re-appointed could be initiated by the subsequent Disciplinary Authority only on the report submitted or forwarded by the earlier Disciplinary - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 Authority of the concerned Government servant. In the instant case, there was no report from the respondent’s previous employer or department i.e., Police Department. 12. Learned Additional Government Advocate during the course of hearing, pointed out at Annexure-R4, letter dated 25.07.2016 and submitted that the said letter was the basis on which enquiry proceedings initiated. Annexure-R4, letter dated 25.07.2016 which is subsequent to initiation of enquiry by issuance of charge memo dated 18.01.2016. Thus, Annexure-R4, letter of the Superintendent of Police, KGF cannot be the basis for initiation of proceedings against the respondent. 13. The Tribunal under impugned order, proceeded to quash the order of removal on the ground that the present Disciplinary Authority of respondent i.e., Education Department has no jurisdiction and it could only by the Disciplinary Authority in the department where the applicant allegedly conducted misconduct. The said observation is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 contrary to Rule 16A of CCA Rules. Rule 16A of CCA Rules empowers the present Disciplinary Authority of concerned Government servant to initiate Disciplinary proceedings for any act or misconduct committed by such Government servant during his previous employment, but on the basis of the report submitted by the previous department. 14. The Tribunal is also not justified in granting the full salary and emoluments to the respondent during the period for which he was out of service. Since the respondent has not worked, the Tribunal could not have granted the respondent full salary and emoluments during the said period. Moreover, the respondent, today filed memo undertaking to forego salary for the period during which he was out of service. However, the period during which the respondent was out of service has to be counted for all other purposes except for arrears of salary. 15. In the above circumstances, the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21041-DB WP No. 10870 of 2025 ORDER a) Writ petition is partly allowed. b) Impugned order dated 28.06.2024 in Application No.5320/2023 is modified only to the extent to deny full salary with interest at 8% p.a., during the period for which the respondent was out of service. c) The petitioners shall reinstate the respondent forthwith. d) The period during which the respondent was out of service shall be counted for all other purposes except for arrears of salary. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33