- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 11935 OF 2022 (S-DE) BETWEEN: SRI GAJENDRA K K S/O SRI KRISHNEGOWDA K S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION ATTENDER, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101. RESIDING AT: THYAGARAJA NAGARA, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADV.) AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101 (ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE). Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 3. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101 (ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.N. NITHIN, ADV. FOR SRI. K V NARASIMHAN, ADV. FOR R1, R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS, AND II) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2022 PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FOR CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT IN HV/E AND A NO.03/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, an Attender in the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order of penalty dated 10.12.2020 in D.E.No.1/2018 imposing penalty of withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect in exercise of power under rule 8(iii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 (for short “1957 Rules”) and also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 appellate order dated 15.02.2022 in HV/E & A No.3/2021 (Annexure-A) whereby the order of the Disciplinary Authority is confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Prasanna Kumar P for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.K.N.Nithish for Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Attender in the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere. While he was working as such, a charge memo dated 09.10.2018 was issued alleging 2 charges of negligence and irresponsibility in performing his duties; remaining unauthorized absent and attended to duty without wearing Uniform. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.03.2019. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner appointed Enquiry Officer to enquiry into alleged misconduct. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure-H) holding that the charge - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 alleged are proved. The petitioner was issued with second show-cause notice dated 23.07.2020 enclosing enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply at Annexure-K dated 03.08.2020 praying to exonerate him from the charges and not to impose any punishment. The first respondent-Disciplinary Authority under order dated 10.12.2020 in D.E.No.1/2018 (Annexure-D) imposed punishment of withholding 3 annual increments with cumulative effect in exercise of Rule 8(iii) of 1957 Rules. Questioning the said punishment, the petitioner filed appeal before the High Court and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure-A). Challenging the order of penalty as well as appellate order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order imposing penalty of withholding 3 annual increments with cumulative effect by the first respondent is opposed to material on record and further he submits that the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 charges are proved against the petitioner without looking into material placed before him. Learned counsel would submit that it is a case of “no evidence” and further submits that 7 witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer as P.W.1 to P.W.7. P.W.2 to P.W.5 have not supported the case of the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel would submit that P.W.1 is Sheristedar who had animosity with the petitioner and further he submits that P.W.6 and P.W.7 are Presiding Officers who have spoken against the petitioner. He submits that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.6 and P.W.7 cannot be believed as they are interested witness and the Disciplinary Authority failed to take note of the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5. Thus, learned counsel submits that the Enquiry Officer without properly appreciating the evidence or material on record has wrongly come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Further, learned counsel would submit that charges leveled against the petitioner are totally false and baseless. Further, he submits that the petitioner has performed his duty to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 best of his ability, even in the absence of sufficient staff. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has discharged his duties for more than 18 hours a day and he has spent more time in the office itself. Further, learned counsel would submit that the punishment of withholding 3 annual increments with cumulative effect is harsh and disproportionate to the alleged charges. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.N.Nithish would submit that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of punishment. Learned counsel would submit that in a departmental proceeding, the charge is to be proved on preponderance of probability. Further, he submits that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into sufficiency of evidence and could only examine as to whether there is some evidence on record to prove the charge. Learned counsel taking through the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 submits that there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v/s SUBRATA NATH reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1617. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned order of penalty requires interference at the hands of this Court? 8. Answer to the above point would be in the negative and the writ petition is liable to be rejected, for the following reasons: The petitioner is working as Attender in the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Tarikere. A departmental enquiry was initiated by issuing charge memo dated 09.10.2018 alleging two charges against the petitioner, which read as follows: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 “DgÉÆÃ¥À-1 : ²æÃ. PÉ.PÉ. UÀeÉÃAzÀæ, ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀ ¤®ðPÀëvÉ, ¨ÉÃeÁªÁ¨ÁÝjvÀ£À, GvÉÛçÃPÉë, GzÀÝlvÀ£À, DzÉñÀzÀ G®èAWÀ£É, ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²gÀ¸ÉÛÃzÁgÀgÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, KgÀÄzsÀé¤AiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw CxÀªÁ ªÀÄÄ£ÀÆìZÀ£É ¤ÃqÀzÉà UÀ½UÉ gÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQ PÀZÉÃj PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ CrØAiÀÄÄAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1966 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3(i) (ii) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (iii)£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ ¨ÁzÀågÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. DgÉÆÃ¥À-2 : ²æÃ. PÉ.PÉ. UÀeÉÃAzÀæ, ¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ, DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÀUÀ®Ä PÁªÀ®Ä PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÆ PÀZÉÃj PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀĪÀ¸ÀÛç zsÀj¸ÀzÉà PÀZÉÃj PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¨Áj £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤ÃrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¤ªÀÄä £ÀqÀªÀ½UÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ vÀAzÀÄPÉƼÀîzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1966 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3(i) (ii) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (iii)£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ ¨ÁzÀågÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.” In sum and substance, the alleged charge is that the petitioner has shown negligence and irresponsibility and disobeyed the orders of higher officers and Sheristedar; without sanction of leave has proceeded on earned leave. The second charge is that though the petitioner was asked - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 to perform day duty, he remained absent and he has attended to duty without wearing Uniform. 9. To prove the charge against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority examined as many as 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked as many as 76 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P76. The petitioner in support of his case examined himself as R.W1 and examined one witness as R.W.2 apart from marking documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D31. 10. The Enquiry Officer, on appreciation of material on record including oral as well as documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved in the departmental proceedings. The charges are to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability and no strict rules of evidence is applicable. Moreover, examining or going into sufficiency or otherwise of evidence is the function of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution would not act as appellate authority and venture to examine sufficiency - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 of evidence. It would examine only as to whether there is some evidence to prove the charge. In the instant case, witnesses P.W.1, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have fully supported the case of the Disciplinary Authority whereas P.W.2 to P.W.5 have supported the case of the Disciplinary Authority by saying that P.W.1 and the petitioner quarreled on small issues. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SUBRATA NATH case (supra) while examining the question as to whether the learned Single Judge and Division Bench could have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority, at paragraph 22 has held as follows: “22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has to discretion to impose appropriate punishment on - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed in so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P.Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefore.” 12. It is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA OF OTHERS VS. P.GUNASEKARAN reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 has held under what circumstances, the High Court could interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority and under what circumstances, the High Court would not be in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 a position to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Relevant paragraph 12 and 13 reads as follows: “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the inquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the inquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the inquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 13. In the instant case, P.W.6 and P.W.7, the Presiding Officer of the respective Courts had categorically stated with regard to indiscipline of the petitioner and disobedience of the orders of the Presiding Officers and Sheristedar which is extracted in the enquiry report at paragraphs 22 to 30. When the punishment is imposed based on the evidence on record and finding of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment. 14. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the punishment is too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged charge. When the charge alleged is disobedience - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:3400 WP No. 11935 of 2022 of the order of Presiding Officers and Sheristedar of the Court of Civil Judge which is proved, the punishment of withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect, in my opinion is not harsh or disproportionate. A person who is working in judicial department has to maintain high degree of discipline. It is for the employees of judicial department to obey the orders of higher officers which is one of the utmost duty. Thus, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74