- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17364 WP No. 28350 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28350 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: K. ANAND KRISHNA S/O LATE K. MANICK SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O NO.2716/C, SNAKE SHYAM ROAD, 2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CUM DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS BANGALORE-560001 [REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY] 2. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD JAL BHAVAN, NO.6, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029 [REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR] 3. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD JALA BHAVAN, NO.6, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029 [REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT] …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17364 WP No. 28350 of 2023 (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022 BEARING NO. £ÀCE 09 UWE 2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE 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 R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order No.£ÀCE 09 UWE 2021 dated 03.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.1. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 18.10.2023 and further to direct the respondent No.1 to consider his representation dated 07.09.2022. 2. The petitioner contends that while in service, he had applied for leave between 04.12.2017 to 30.06.2018 and did not report to work which was treated as an unauthorized - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17364 WP No. 28350 of 2023 absence, following which, a departmental enquiry was held. The salary of the petitioner which was then a sum of Rs.65,900/- was ordered to be reduced by the Disciplinary Authority in terms of the order dated 31.10.2019 to the minimum in the pay scale of Rs.43100/- to 83900/- i.e. to a sum of Rs.43,100/-. The petitioner challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority in an appeal before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 passed the impugned order allowing the appeal in part and in modification of the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Disciplinary Authority reducing the pay to the minimum in the pay scale of the petitioner, directed deduction of two annual increments already granted as on 31.10.2019 and one future annual increment with cumulative effect. In respect of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 04.10.2017 to 12.02.2018, the leave available in the credit of the petitioner at the time of his retirement was ordered to be adjusted. The petitioner contends that he submitted representation to the respondent No.1 to consider restoring his pay and the said representation is not considered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 and he has also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17364 WP No. 28350 of 2023 sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 18.10.2023 and further to direct the respondent No.1 to consider his representation dated 07.09.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No.1 while considering the appeal, did not give a categorical finding whether the finding of the Disciplinary Authority was just and proper. He contends that the respondent No.1 merely modified the punishment without accepting the reasons assigned by the petitioner justifying his absence. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is not in accordance with law and hence, warrants interference. 4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contends that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was modified and a minor punishment of reduction of two increments and one future increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner and therefore, he cannot have any grievance. She also contends that the petitioner was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17364 WP No. 28350 of 2023 benefitted from the order passed by the Appellate Authority and he cannot challenge the same. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. A copy of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 which is placed on record shows that the respondent No.1 while considering an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, merely held as follows: "ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¼ÀZÀgÀAr ªÀÄAqÀ½ EªÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.10.2019 gÀ zÀAqÀ£ÁzÉñÀzÀ°è ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß JµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ PÀrvÀUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ PÁ®«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EzÀjAzÁV EzÀÄ zÉÆõÀ¥ÀÆjvÀ zÀAqÀ£ÁzÉñÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¨sÁUÀ±ÀB gÀÄdĪÁvÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß DzsÀj¹ zÀAqÀ£É «¢ü¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ºÁUÀÆ £ÁåAiÀĸÀªÀÄävÀªÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ, F zÀAqÀ£ÁzÉñÀ¢AzÀ vÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ fêÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ PÀµÀÖPÀgÀªÁVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ DzÀÝjAzÀ vÀªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ zÀAqÀ£ÁzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdj CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17364 WP No. 28350 of 2023 ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ gÀeÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹ J¯Áè ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©qÀÄUÀqÉUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ªÉâ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. xxx ªÉÄîä£À« ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ «¢ü¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ zÀAqÀ£ÁzÉñÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 11073/2021 (S-RES) gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ, ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÁUÀ±ÀB JwÛ»rAiÀÄ®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¹, CzÀgÀAvÉ, ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¼ÀZÀgÀAr ªÀÄAqÀ½ EªÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀdªÀÄ/ºÉZï.Dgï.r- 6/1505/2019-20 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.10.2019gÀ zÀAqÀ£ÁzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ¥Àðr¹, ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃt gÀÆ.43,100-83,900gÀ°è ²æà PÉ. D£ÀAzÀPÀȵÀÚ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (¤ªÀÈvÀÛ) EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.10.2019 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è 2 ªÁ¶ðPÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À §rÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA¢£À 1 ªÁ¶ðPÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À §rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAavÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ ©ÃgÀĪÀAvÉ vÀqÉ»rAiÀÄĪÀ zÀAqÀ£É «¢ü¹ DzÉò¹gÀĪÀgÀÄ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ DzÉñÀ." 7. It is now trite that when an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority is bound to look into the records of the enquiry and also the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and also verify whether the defence is tenable or not and whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is proportionate to the misconduct - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17364 WP No. 28350 of 2023 alleged against the petitioner. In other words, the Appellate Authority is the final authority which is bound to look into questions of fact and determine whether the charges framed against the petitioner are proved or not or whether a further enquiry is required or not. In the instant case, the Appellate Authority did not go into the report or findings of the Inquiring Authority as well as the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and whether the defence raised by the petitioner was tenable or not but merely proceeded on the assumption that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was true and reduced the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority was bound to reconsider the material produced before the Disciplinary Authority to check whether the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is just or not. Therefore, the impugned order is one without due application of mind and warrants interference. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order bearing No.£ÀCE 09 UWE 2021 dated 03.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside. The appeal before the respondent No.1 is restored. The respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the appeal on merits. If the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17364 WP No. 28350 of 2023 explanation offered by the petitioner herein for his absence from duty is accepted, then the Appellate Authority is bound to exonerate the petitioner and restore all his pay and other benefits. However, if the Appellate Authority is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed or the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has to be suitably modified, it may do so in accordance with law. The appeal shall be disposed of by the Appellate Authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39