- 1 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.101159 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI. CHIDANAND M HALLADMAL, S/O SRI. MALLIKARJUN HALLADMAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC.: NIL, RESIDENT OF SHIVAYOGI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR ROAD, ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI 591304. - PETITIONER (BY SRI.AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, II FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RECRUITMENT AND CHAIRMAN, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR (CIVIL) APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (APPOINTMENT), CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN APPLICATION NO.3969/2024 DATED 04.12.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-D) IN APPLICATION NO.3969/2024, & ETC. R - 2 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.07.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in Application No.3969/2024 dated 04.12.2024 and the petitioner continues his challenge raised to the impugned endorsement dated 21.12.2023 issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil). 2. The undisputed facts leading to this writ petition are that, the petitioner, responding to the recruitment notification issued by the respondents, appeared for the examination conducted by the respondents for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. After verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner, he was summoned to appear for Physical Standard Test, which was held on - 3 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 15.10.2019. The petitioner, having successfully completed the Physical Standard Test, he was instructed to appear for written examination scheduled on 05.01.2020. The petitioner appeared for the examination and a provisional selection list dated 19.03.2020 was announced and the petitioner was found to have been selected in the provisional list, at Sl.No.49. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Inspector General, Western Range, Mangalore for Range Selection on 20.03.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was instructed to appear before the Inspector General of Police on 21.05.2020 for document verification. The petitioner appeared before the Inspector General of Police along with the original documents. The original documents were verified and accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner was instructed to appear for the medical examination and the petitioner appeared on 08.06.2020. After completion of the medical examination, the petitioner was instructed to secure Sindutva certificate. The petitioner submitted Sindutva certificate and was awaiting final selection list. However, respondent No.2 passed an order on 07.08.2020 declaring that the provisional - 4 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 selection of the petitioner stands cancelled, since the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case in crime No.35/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 426 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 3. The petitioner collected information of the alleged crime No.35/2020 and found that the charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.334/2021 and therefore, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.102525/2023 before this court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The learned Single Judge allowed the criminal petition by order dated 11.10.2023, while quashing the criminal proceedings in crime No.35/2020. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation dated 24.11.2023 to respondent No.2 requesting for selection of the petitioner to the post of Police Sub-Inspector. However, respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement dated 21.12.2023 refusing to reconsider the selection of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the endorsement. - 5 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande appearing for the petitioner submitted that criminal proceedings were admittedly initiated at the behest of the respondents, following complaints about the irregularity during the written examination. During the course of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, it was contended by the respondents that on the basis of the complaint received, recording of CCTV footages of all the centers where the written examinations were conducted were reviewed by the authority. In the case of the petitioner, after the first written examination and before the second examination, it was found that the petitioner along with another candidate had drawn the table closer and two candidates had exchanged the question papers. The learned senior counsel therefore submitted that during the course of the examination, no such allegation is made against the petitioner. The authority which had conducted the examination did not make any such allegation against the petitioner. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say regarding the incident. Respondent No.2 did not even wait - 6 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 till the proceedings initiated against the petitioner concluded. No sooner the crime was registered against the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement while pointing out to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of AVTAR SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 5 SCC 471. The impugned endorsement contains an extraction of the decision viz., “A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force”. 5. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U.P. ALLAHABA VS GHANSHYAM DAS GUPTA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1962 SC 1110 and submitted that under such circumstances, it was held that respondent No.2 was duty bound to act as quasi-judicial authority and it was required to follow the principles of natural justice, which require - 7 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 that other party must be heard. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura at Agartala in the case of SHRI.TAPAS CHAKRABORTY S/O LATE HARALAL CHAKRABOTY VS HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE TRI 57, where it was held that, when the FIR once registered has been quashed by the court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., no inference can be drawn to impute any adverse antecedents which in any manner may come in the way and deprive a person from seeking public employment. The relevant rules were also noticed by the High Court, where it was found that, if one has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, it could be a reason for disqualification for appointment. The High Court therefore, held that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if an FIR registered against a person has been quashed, no adverse inference can be drawn to impute on his conduct, a serious consequence of depriving employment. The High Court also noticed a decision of the Apex Court in the case of JOGINDER SINGH VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH reported in (2015) - 8 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 2 SCC 377, where in paragraph 19 it is held that, once there was acquittal by the competent court of jurisdiction one should not be deprived from seeking public employment by declaring him to be unsuitable for the post. 6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents sought to place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS METHU MEDA reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1, wherein it was held and reiterated that acquittal in criminal case is not conclusive of suitability of a candidate to a post concerned and cannot always lead to an inference that he was falsely implicated or had no criminal antecedents. Where a person is acquitted by granting him benefit of doubt or because the witnesses turned hostile, it was held that, that it would not entitle him to appointment, that too in disciplined force. Similarly, the learned Government Advocate placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF - 9 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 POLICE, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER VS MEHAR SINGH reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685. 7. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar for the respondents and perused the petition papers. 8. What is glaring in this matter is the fact that, an allegation of corrupt practice is made against the petitioner and a criminal case is registered against the petitioner, at the behest of the respondents. Till the criminal case was registered against the petitioner, he was not aware of the review of the examination process. Admittedly, during the course of the examination, the examiner did not make any such allegation against the petitioner and no action was taken against the petitioner, either during the process of examination or immediately thereafter. Nearly six months after the petitioner wrote the examination, he received an endorsement stating that petitioner’s selection in the provisional list is cancelled on the ground that he was implicated in a criminal case. It is - 10 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 clear from the undisputed facts that before the competent authority cancelled the selection of the petitioner, the petitioner was not put on notice. No opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner. What is evident is that respondent No.2 who was the Chairman of the appointment committee not only initiated a criminal case against the petitioner, but also decided that the petitioner is guilty of the crime. Respondent No.2 did not think it fit to await the outcome of the criminal case registered against the petitioner. 9. In the considered opinion of this court, this conduct of respondent No.2 would amount to becoming a Judge in his own cause. The Apex Court in the case of GULLAPPALLI NAGESWARARAO AND OTHERS VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1959 SC 1376, has held that the principles governing the “doctrine of bias” vis-à-vis judicial tribunals are well-settled and they are (i) no man shall be a judge in his own cause; (ii) justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. The two maxims yield the - 11 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 result that if a member of a judicial body is subject to a bias in favour of, or against any party to a dispute, or is in such a position that a bias must be assumed to exist, he ought not take part in the decision or sit on the tribunal. It was held that principles are equally applicable to authorities, though they are not courts of justice or judicial tribunals, who have to act judicially in deciding the rights of the other, i.e., authorities who are empowered to discharge quasi-judicial functions. Taking forward the decision in GULLAPPAALLI NAGESWARARAO (SUPRA), a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD., VS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1960 SC 468, held that, having regard to the principles laid in Gullappaalli Nageswararao’s case, the first question to be considered is whether the authorities functioning for the State Government had personal bias against the petitioner. Secondly, whether reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to show-cause or whether the petitioner was denied that right. Thirdly, whether the State Government found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against the - 12 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of FEDCO (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER VS S.N.BILGRAMI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1960 SC 415 has held that, when an authority is conferred with the power to determine the question affecting the rights of a party, such authority should act judiciously and such a process would be a quasi-judicial act. When an authority is performing quasi- judicial functions, it is required to follow the principles of natural justice. This would imply that when the charge is one of fraud, the affected party is entitled to know the particulars of fraud alleged, to inspect the documents on the basis of which fraud is imputed to him and to a personal hearing to explain his case and to absolve himself of the charge made against him. Without these elementary safeguards provided by the authority, the opportunity to be heard given to a party becomes an empty formality. 10. If these principles are applied to the present case, there cannot be two opinion, that respondent No.2 has thrown all the principles to wind. As noticed earlier, the petitioner was not even aware that the authority - 13 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 reviewed the examination process on the basis of the material available on record and having regard to the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, it is clear that respondent No.2 appears to have viewed the CCTV camera recordings and found that the petitioner, after writing the first paper and before writing the second paper, drew two tables closer and after commencement of the examination, the petitioner exchanged his question paper with the neighbouring candidate. The question therefore, is whether such implication would amount to corrupt practice? On the basis of such implication or charge, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, an order was passed by respondent No.2 on 07.08.2020 declaring that the provisional selection of the petitioner stands cancelled, since the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case. From the above, it is clear that respondent No.2 has acted as a Judge in his own cause. Being a complainant and initiating a criminal case against the petitioner, respondent No.2 became a party to the proceedings. Therefore, respondent No.2 could not take a decision in the matter - 14 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 and he was required to await the outcome of the criminal case. 11. It is noticeable that in the impugned order dated 07.08.2020, it is clearly stated that the provisional selection list was published on 19.03.2020 and 20.03.2020 and the second selection list was announced on 22.06.2020 and thereafter, a crime was registered in crime No.35/2020. Immediately thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 07.08.2020, while citing a decision of the Apex Court in the case of AVTAR SINGH (SUPRA) that, even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Respondent No.2 has totally misdirected himself in applying the decision in Avtar Singh to the petitioner. Avtar Singh was decided by a Larger Bench, a Bench of three Judges, on reference to resolve conflicting opinion of the Division Benches of the Apex Court, to decide on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a - 15 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 criminal case. The Hon’ble Apex Court was faced with cases where appointments were obtained fraudulently, while concealing the criminal cases which were either pending or where conviction orders were passed holding the applicant guilty. Such is not the case in the present matter. Admittedly, the criminal case was instituted at the behest of respondent No.2 herein on a charge that the petitioner was involved in corrupt practice while writing the examination. That being the position, respondent No.2 could not have ventured into deciding that the petitioner was guilty of the said charge. 12. Moreover, as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel, this court quashed the entire criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it would not be permissible for respondent No.2 to reject the request made by the petitioner to reconsider his case for appointment, since the charge leveled against the petitioner was regarding corrupt practice in the course of the examination conducted by respondent No.2 and it could not be considered as an - 16 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 offence involving moral turpitude. This court is also of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 could not have passed such an order on 07.08.2020 cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner. 13. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.3969/2024 is quashed and set aside. iii) The impugned order dated 07.08.2020 and the impugned endorsement dated 21.12.2023 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are quashed and set aside. iv) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Police Sub- Inspector (Civil) in terms of the *notification * Corrected vide Court Order dated 09.01.2026 - 17 - WP No.101159 OF 2025 *bearing No.84/NEMAKATI-2/2019-20, dated 18.07.2019 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. v) The petitioner shall have the benefit of counting service from the date of appointment of other appointees *under the said notification, for the purpose of seniority and pay scale. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE MBS CT: VP * Corrected vide Court Order dated 09.01.2026