- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10448 WP No. 12465 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12434 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12465 OF 2022 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12434 OF 2022 (S-RES) IN WP No. 12465/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. G.M. MOHAN 963511425 CONSTABLE/GD S/O SRI. MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE KUDREMUKH, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PRESENTLY WORKING AT: CISF UNIT, (SSTPP) SOLAPUR-413215 MAHARASHTRA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE KIOCL UNIT, KUDREMUKH-577142 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. 2. THE GROUP COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, GROUP HEADQUARTERS, C-2, KENDRIYA BHAVAN POST, CZEZ, COCHIN-37. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10448 WP No. 12465 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12434 of 2022 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, SOUTH ZONE HEAD QUARTERS, B-WING, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESENT NAGAR, CHENNAI-90. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, S.S. HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2010 BEARING NO.V-15014/GMM/MAJ/KIOCL/GHC/AD.V/ 2010/1551 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-E, THE ORDER NO.PATRAK:VI-11014/56/ANU/DADI/2010/6707 DATED 28.10.2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-G ORDER BEARING V-15014/L&R/SS/REV/GM/2011/5651 DATED 24.06.2011 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-J AS THE SAME ARE UNJUST ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC. IN WP NO. 12434/2022: BETWEEN: SRI. K. DURYODHANA RAO 922331437 HEAD CONSTABLE/GD S/O SRI. LACHUMAYYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, KUDREMUKH CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PRESENTLY WORKING AT: CISF UNIT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10448 WP No. 12465 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12434 of 2022 MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROLEUM LTD., KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE KIOCL UNIT, KUDREMUKH-577142 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. 2. THE GROUP COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, GROUP HEADQUARTERS, C-2, KENDRIYA BHAVAN POST, CZEZ, COCHIN-37. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, SOUTH ZONE HEADQUARTERS, B-WING, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESENT NAGAR, CHENNAI-90. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE S.S. HEADQUARTERS CHENNAI. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2010 BEARING NO.V-15014/KDR/MAJ/KIOCL/GHC/AD.V/2010/1551 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E, THE ORDER NO.11014156/6707 DATED 25.10.2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G, ORDER BEARING NO.V- 15014/L&R/SS/REV/KD/2011/5652 DATED 27.06.2011 PASSED BY - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10448 WP No. 12465 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12434 of 2022 THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J AS THE SAME ARE UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners in both these writ petitions have challenged an order of disciplinary authority dated 14.06.2010 as well as the appellate authority dated 25.10.2010 and 28.10.2010 and the reviewing authority dated 27.06.2011 and 24.06.2011, in terms of which, minor penalty of with holding of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon them. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions contends that the orders impugned in these writ petitions were earlier challenged in W.P.Nos.42964/2011 c/w 43167/2011 which were dismissed. However, he contends that the criminal case filed against the persons who were accused of committing theft of copper wires, which was the basis for departmental enquiry against the petitioners, ended in an acquittal of accused. Therefore, he contends that the impugned orders imposing minor punishment against the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10448 WP No. 12465 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12434 of 2022 petitioners has to be interfered with. He contends that the order passed by the criminal Court is subsequent to the order passed by the disciplinary authority and by the said order, the accused persons were acquitted of the offence alleged, thereby indicating that there was no theft of copper wires. He therefore submits that the substratum of the charge itself is not accepted by the criminal Court and therefore the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be set at naught. 3. This is however opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who contends that finding of the criminal Court does not have any bearing on the departmental enquiry. He contends that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioners were found to be responsible for the missing copper wires and therefore a minor penalty was imposed and the same was upheld by a coordinate bench of this Court and he therefore contends that the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case, cannot be a ground for the petitioners to challenge the departmental proceedings. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10448 WP No. 12465 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12434 of 2022 4. This Court in W.P.No.42964/2011 c/w W.P.No.43167/2011 had perused the material on record which resulted in imposition of a penalty against the petitioners and had returned a finding that the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the reviewing authority are all just and proper and therefore, dismissed the writ petition in terms of the order dated 31.08.2012. 5. The petitioners now have attempted to challenge the impugned orders again by taking advantage of the acquittal of accused in the criminal case to contend that the incident did not occur. It is trite that the finding of the criminal Court cannot affect the departmental proceedings. Consequently, the petitioners cannot renew the challenge to the impugned orders. 6. Hence, writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20