- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4975 WP No. 114759 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 114759 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: S.D. KANMUCHANAL AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: SHERISTEDAR PRESENTLY WORKING IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS, BAGALKOT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJAIAH N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL BENCH REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE) HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-01 (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) 2. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DISTRICT COURT, BAGALKOT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.11.2010 IN DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY NO.3/2010 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4975 WP No. 114759 of 2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 16.11.2010 in departmental enquiry No.3/2010, by which, punishment of withholding of two future increment with cumulative effect was passed. He has also challenged an order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner while working as a Sheristedar at District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot was issued with articles of charge, statement of imputation of misconduct, list of witnesses and list of documents, proposing to hold departmental enquiry under Rule 11(3) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1957'). 3. The gravamen of articles of charge was that the petitioner had submitted a fabricated bill dated 30.12.2018 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4975 WP No. 114759 of 2015 claiming reimbursement of a sum of Rs.7,450/- towards medical expenses. He submitted his reply on 19.07.2010 denying the charge and claimed that the bill was for a sum of Rs.7,200/- towards the ward charges paid for 36 days of stay of his wife at the hospital. The disciplinary authority found that the reply was not satisfactory and therefore appointed the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi, as an inquiring authority. The petitioner was provided with opportunity at the enquiry to produce evidence in support of the articles of charge. PW.1 namely the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi was examined and the doctor who treated the wife of the petitioner was examined as PW.2. The enquiry officer after considering the material on record, held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Following this, the report of the enquiry was furnished to the petitioner and he was called upon to show-cause why a penalty as provided under Rules, 1957 should not be imposed. The show cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner and he submitted his representation on 25.10.2010. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer and the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, held that the report of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4975 WP No. 114759 of 2015 enquiry officer was just and proper and was based on sufficient evidence. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was an Accounts Sheristedar, held that imposition of penalty of withholding of two future increments with cumulative effect would be sufficient. Consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed the said punishment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment imposed and the finding recorded by the inquiring authority as well as the acceptance of the report of inquiring authority filed an appeal under Rule 11(3) of Rules, 1957. The appeal was also dismissed confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the wife of the petitioner was diagnosed with cancer and was treated at Belgaum Cancer Hospital and his son-in-law was attending to her. He contends that whatever bills that were generated by the Belgaum Cancer Hospital which was handed over to his son-in-law was in turn placed before the appropriate authority for reimbursement. He therefore, contends that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4975 WP No. 114759 of 2015 petitioner was not involved in any act to make wrongful claim. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner has now retired and therefore, the Court may take a sympathetic view of the matter. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the enquiry, the fraudulent bill claimed by the petitioner was marked as Ex.P7. PW.2- doctor who treated the wife of the petitioner was examined and he placed on record the original bill book which was marked as Ex.P8. He contends that the original bill book which had the carbon copies of the bills disclosed that it was drawn only for a sum of Rs.250/- and Ex.P.7 was tampered to seem, as if the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.7,200/- towards ward charges at the rate of Rs.200/- for 36 days in addition to Rs.250/-. He therefore contends that the petitioner had deliberately made a wrongful claim. He therefore submits that the finding of the inquiring authority was just and proper. In so far as proportionality of the penalty imposed, he submitted that the petitioner was the Accounts Sheristedar and was bound to know that he cannot make wrongful claim, yet he fabricated the bills and made a wrongful claim. Therefore, he contends that the imposition of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4975 WP No. 114759 of 2015 penalty of reduction of two future increments with cumulative effect is just and proper. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. The petitioner was the Accounts Sheristedar. At the relevant point of time, his wife was diagnosed to be suffering from cancer. The petitioner has contended that his application for leave was not considered favourably and therefore his wife was attended by his son-in-law who made all payments. PW.2/doctor who treated the wife of petitioner was examined at the enquiry. He deposed that the wife of the petitioner was admitted at the hospital for only 03 days i.e., on 09.12.2008, 18.12.2008 and 30.12.2008. He also placed on record the bill book containing the carbon copies of the bills including the one which was marked as EX.P7. Ex.P8 discloses that Ex.P7 was issued only for a sum of Rs.250/- and not for a sum of Rs.7,450/-. The words "general ward charges 200 x 36 = 7200" appearing in Ex.P7 is not found in Ex.P8 thereby indicating that the same was introduced by the petitioner to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4975 WP No. 114759 of 2015 make a claim of a sum of Rs.7,200/- though the same was not paid. Therefore, it was established beyond doubt that the petitioner had tampered Ex.P7 to make a wrongful claim. The finding of the inquiring authority is therefore unexceptionable and the acceptance of the finding of the inquiring authority by the disciplinary authority is also just and proper. 9. However, in so far as the penalty of withholding of two future increments with cumulative effect is concerned, it is relevant to note that a sum of Rs.7,200/- though claimed by the petitioner, was not reimbursed to him. The articles of charge centered around the conduct of the petitioner in making such unlawful claim. Since there was no financial mis- appropriation by the petitioner, having regard to the precarious circumstances in which his family was placed, it could quite be possible that the petitioner had made a claim to cover up some expenses, which were not allowed and this could be an act in absolute desperation. Now that the petitioner has retired from the service, it is only appropriate to modify the penalty imposed to one of censure. 10. Consequently this petition is allowed in part. The impugned order of the disciplinary authority as well as the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4975 WP No. 114759 of 2015 appellate authority upholding the penalty imposed is set aside and the order of penalty of withholding two increments in future with cumulative effect is modified to an order of censure. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits and the same shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Office is directed to return the original records to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 19 Sl No.: 14