- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 104713 OF 2022 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SHRI. SHIVANAND S/O. SIDDAPPA DIDDIBAGIL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO), R/O. BEVOOR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH AND SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BENGALURU, R/BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 23.03.2022 IN APPLICATION NO.10192/2019 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-A; CONSEQUENTLY NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO REINSTITUTE THE PETITIONER IN REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF BAGALKOT DISTRICT BE ISSUED; NECESSARY ORDERS BE PASSED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.GRAAAPA 10 GRAPAMKA 2017 DATED 06.06.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE A-24 FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Application No.10192/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi1 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 06.06.2019 produced at Annexure-A24 on the file of respondent No.1 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement and for reinstatement was dismissed by the Tribunal. 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Lokayukta and the learned AGA for respondent No.1-State and perused the material on record. 3. Perusal of the material on record will indicate that one Bhimanagouda Kabadagi filed a complaint on 02.03.2010 with the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura alleging that there were several deserving houseless persons in whose favour houses had to be sanctioned despite which the petitioner- Panchayat Development Officer as well as the President, Smt.Renuka Gopal Jadapet had illegally sanctioned houses to ineligible and well of persons and the road leading to their agricultural land was sub-standard and an enquiry in this regard was warranted. 4. In pursuance to the said complaint, the Lokayukta initiated enquiries on two charges viz., (i) allotting of houses to beneficiaries, who already own houses under the Housing Scheme 2007-2009 and (ii) releasing the funds to the beneficiaries, who had not constructed the houses. The petitioner is said to have participated in the enquiry and denied the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 charges subsequent to which the petitioner did not contest the enquiry proceedings any further culminating in an enquiry report dated 12.06.2018 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and issuing a recommendation dated 14.06.2018 to the respondent No.1-State proposing to impose penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. 5. Pursuant of the same, the respondent No.1/State issued a show-cause notice dated 11.07.2018 to which the petitioner did not submit any reply and the respondent No.1 issued one more second show-cause notice dated 04.04.2019 to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply, inter alia, contending that he was not guilty of the charges and that an opportunity ought to have been given to him to contest the proceedings since his omission and inability to do so was due to work pressure and constant travel on account of work and due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. It was the grievance of the petitioner that despite detail reply and explanation along with relevant documents submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notices referred to supra, the respondent No.1 proceeded to pass an order of compulsory - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 retirement on 06.06.2019, which was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in Application No.10192/2019, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23.03.2022, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the enquiry report dated 12.06.2018 produced at Annexure-A6 to the application before the Tribunal, which reads as under: “21. Point No.1: The Disciplinary Authority has examined the complainant by name Sri Bheemagonda Sangappa Kabadagi examined as PW-1. It is his evidence from 2005 to 2008 the DGO., was working as Secretary at Chikkarugi Gram Panchayath and during 2007 to 2010 houses under various scheme granted by the said Panchayath to the rich persons and who are having own houses instead of granting the houses to the poor and needy persons. It is his evidence inspite of his request to furnish the copies of the documents under RTI scheme in respect of housing scheme the Gram Panchayath, Taluk Panchayath and the Zilla Panchayath have not furnished the documents. It is his evidence at the relevant point of time the DGO., was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 working as Secretary and Smt Renuka was working as President of the Gram Panchayath. 22. It is his evidence as the DGO, has committed misconduct he has lodged the complaint vide Form No.I in two sets of different dates and Form No.Il as per Ex.P-1 to 3 and identified the signatures as per Ex.P- 1(a) to 3(a). In support of his evidence he has relied upon the copies of the correspondence, information furnished and the application under the provisions of the RTI Act, copy of the complaint dtd 2-3-2010 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, and the rejoinder dtd:24-2-2016 as per Ex.P-4 to 8 and identified the signature as per Ex.P-8(a). In view of the absence of the DGO., the cross examination of the PW- 1 taken as nil. The Disciplinary Authority has closed the evidence and as the DCO., placed ex-parte question of recording either SOS or Questionnaire does not arise. 23. The learned Presenting Officer has filed a detailed written brief and made clear the DGO., while working as Secretary at Chikkarugi Gram Panchayath has sanctioned houses under Vasathi Yojane during 2007-2009 to those persons who are already having their own houses and the DGO., has passed bill to some beneficiaries even though they have not constructed the houses and that he has also constructed the road from Kadlewada to Ankalagi which is of substandard quality and thereby the DGO., has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed misconduct as enumerated under KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 24. It is the contents of the written brief inspite of his appearance the DGO., has not filed the written statement and that he is placed ex-parte. The learned Presenting Officer has also referred to the evidence of the complainant as it is his evidence that the DGO., has not furnished the information sought for and during 2007 to 2010. the DGO., has sanctioned houses under Vasathi Yojane to those who have own houses and misappropriated the Government fund. It is also the contents of the written brief even at the time of scrutiny the DGO., has not filed the comments and that he has also not filed the written statement to deny the charges. It is the contents of the written brief in the absence of the comments and written statement the allegations of the complainant is implied to be true and correct and in the absence of defence by the DGO., the charges are implied to be established by the Disciplinary Authority and contended the charges framed against the DGO., is established and the DGO., is liable for punishment as per KCS (Conduct) Rules. 25. On consideration of the materials available on record it is the allegation of the complainant during 2007 to 2009 the DGO., being the Secretary of the said Gram Panchayath has sanctioned houses under Vasathi Yojane in favour of the persons who are already having their own houses and that he has passed the bill in favour some beneficiaries who have not constructed the houses. It is also the allegation inspite of applications under the provisions of the RTI Act the DGO., has not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 furnished the information and the road work is substandard and in a bad condition. 26. It is necessary to mention the contents of the complaint dtd:2-3-2010 marked as per Ex.P-7 was addressed to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Bijapura wherein the complainant has expressed his grievance as the beneficiaries at Kadalewada P.C. Village have no houses and the road formed is substandard and not in a position to make use of the same, hence, prayed to take suitable action against the Secretary/President of the said Panchayath. It is necessary to mention the complainant has relied upon the copy of the application dtd 21-4-2010 marked as per Ex. P-6 addressed to the Secretary of the said Gram Panchayath wherein he has requested to furnish the information with regard to list of beneficiaries under Ashraya Scheme. 27. It is necessary to mention the contents of Ex.P-4 letter dtd:20-8-2013 of the Zilla Panchayath, Bijapura, wherein, it has been made clear the Secretary of the said Gram Panchayath has to furnish the information sought by the applicant and to report within a week. The said fact makes it very clear the DGO., being the Secretary of the said Gram Panchayath was not responding to the applications under the provisions of the RTI Act. It is necessary to mention the contents of the letter dtd:27-8-2013 marked as per Ex.P-5 reveals the DGO., has addressed a letter to the Chief Project Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Bijapura and made an - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 attempt to contend during 2010 within the jurisdiction of Chikkarugi Gram Panchayath no beneficiary list under Ashraya Yojane was prepared and no houses was also granted by the Government and the copy of the said letter was addressed to the complainant. 28. Vide complaint in Form No.! & 11 dtd: 17-10- 2013 marked as per Ex.P-2 & 3 it is the prayer of the complainant to take action against the DGO., and the President of the Gram Panchayath. The contents of Form No.1, dtd:30-1-2014 marked as per Ex P-1 also came to be lodged against the DGO., and the President of the said Panchayath and it is the allegation of the complainant the DGO., has refused to furnish the information. 29. It is necessary to mention the complainant has also relied upon the rejoinder dtd:24-2-2016 as per Ex. P-8 wherein the complainant has made clear for having granted the houses under Ashraya Scheme to those persons who are having houses and rich persons and that the DGO., has drawn the amount and thereby misappropriated the Government fund. The contents of Ex.P-5 also reveals the DGO., was not responding to the applications filed under the provisions of the RTI Act and that he has not furnished the information sought for by the complainant. The complainant has also furnished the names of the beneficiaries for the year 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 with the signatures of the witnesses. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 30. In the case on hand the entire oral and documentary evidence placed by the Disciplinary Authority remained un-challenged and undisputed. The DGO., remained absent from appearing and to defend the matter. It is necessary to mention nothing prevented the DGO., to appear before this Enquiry Officer to defend the matter and no reason or explanation is also forthcoming. Thereby, the charges leveled against the DGO., has been successfully proved and established by the Disciplinary Authority. In view of the absence of the DGO., the available oral and documentary evidence does not call for any more discussion. The allegations made against the DGO., makes it very clear about the approach of the DGO., towards the public in general and towards the complainant in particular while considering the applications under the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of the nature of the case on hand it has been successfully proved that the DGO., being responsible has committed misconduct. 31. For the reasons stated above the Disciplinary Authority has successfully proved the charges framed against the DGO., and about his misconduct. On appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence I hold that the charges leveled against the DGO., established beyond all probabilities. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 32. Point No. 2: For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 ORDER The Disciplinary Authority has proved the charges framed against the DGO., Sri.Jiddi Bagalu S.S, the then Secretary, Chikkarugi Grama Panchayath, Sindagi Taluk, Vijayapura District. This report be submitted to the Hon'ble Upalokayukta-I in a sealed cover forthwith.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid enquiry report will clearly indicate that the petitioner entered appearance before the enquiry officer and submitted his reply pleading not guilty, subsequent to which he did not appear before the enquiry officer any further and the said aspect has been taken note of by the enquiry officer while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him on the ground that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents had remained unchallenged and undisputed and that the petitioner had remained absent and had not defended the matter. 8. The enquiry officer also records a finding that nothing prevented the petitioner from appearing before the enquiry officer and no reason or explanation was forthcoming, as a result of which the enquiry officer proceeds to come to the conclusion - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 that the charges leveled against the DGO had been successfully proved and established by the disciplinary authorities. In pursuance of the aforesaid enquiry report, the Lokayukta recommends the imposition of major penalty/punishment of compulsory retirement, which was accepted, pursuant to which, the respondent No.1 issued the aforesaid two show cause notices to which the petitioner submitted detailed reply at Annexure-A10 dated 04.04.2019 inter alia explaining that he had a good defence to urge on merits and his inability and omission to appear before the DGO on account of work pressure and traveling due to official work. Upon the petitioner submitting the aforesaid reply to the show cause notices, the respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the aforesaid order dated 06.06.2019 imposing major penalty/punishment of compulsory retirement, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. 9. In this context, a perusal of the averments made in the application filed by the petitioner before that tribunal will indicate that it is a specific contention, in particular at paragraph 4, that he not only denied the charges levelled against him, but due to various official works with the department and continuous - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 official tours, the petitioner-applicant was unable to attend further enquiry proceedings due to which he was placed ex-parte and the enquiry proceeded with his absence and the charges were held to be proved. Along with the application before the Tribunal, the petitioner also placed on record various documents including bills, photographs, maintenance work documents etc., in order to contend that the petitioner had completed the work and without there being spot inspection conducted by the respondents, it was not possible to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not completed the work assigned to him and thereby being guilty of the charges levelled against him. Despite the said contentions urged by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the Tribunal summarily rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had not participated in the enquiry and by holding as under: “7. It is not in dispute that an enquiry was instituted against the applicant for having committed certain irregularities in the allotment of houses to certain ineligible beneficiaries under Rural Housing Scheme and for releasing of funds to those who have not constructed houses, while he was working as Panchayat Development Officer, Chikkarugi Panchayat - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 of Vijayapura District. It is also not in dispute that initially the applicant participated in the enquiry and thereafter, continued to remain absent, as a result of which the enquiry was conducted ex-parte. It is the contention of the applicant that since he was transferred away from Vijayapura District to Bagalkote District, no notice was served on him, as a result of which, he could not participate in the enquiry. Further, in view of the fact that enquiry has been conducted ex- parte, the findings of such enquiry cannot be held against him and the impugned order of imposing penalty therefore will also not survive. We have carefully examined all the documents in this regard. As regards the contention of the applicant that he was not served with notice as per Section 9(3)(a) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the original records were summoned from the office and on perusal of the same, it is observed that notice under Section 9(3)(a) of the said Act has been issued to the applicant and he has also received the said notices. Therefore, this contention of the applicant does not survive for consideration. As regards the contention that the charges are imprecise and vague, it is seen that the articles of charge clearly mention the names of different beneficiaries who have been allotted houses during the period 2007-09, who already possessed the house in their names. Further, it also mentions the names of the allottees or beneficiaries for the years 2007-08, 2008- - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 09 and 2009-10, who had not constructed the house and yet had received the amounts in this regard. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the articles of charge are vague and imprecise. The applicant had tried to explain his absence from the enquiry by stating that due to his promotion and transfer to Bagalkote District, he was far away from Vijaypur and therefore, he was not aware of the notice issued to him. However, it is seen from the records that the applicant had participated in the enquiry for the first time on 2.5.2017 and the next date of hearing fixed on 3.7.2017 and it was made known to him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was not aware of the dates on which enquiry took place for him to absent himself from the enquiry. It is a fact that due to non-participation of the applicant, the enquiry had to proceed ex-parte and this fact has been clearly recorded in the enquiry report. Be that as it may, the applicant has also been provided with an opportunity for replying to the second show cause notice. The applicant has also replied to the said notice by furnishing replies on 4.4.2019 and 16.4.2019 denying the charges and also putting forth his case before the Disciplinary authority. From the impugned order of penalty, it is seen that the Disciplinary authority has made a clear reference to the reply submitted by the applicant in response to the second show-cause notice and agreed with the findings of the Enquiry officer before he has proceeded to impose the penalty on the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary authority has not considered the reply of the applicant or not applied his mind to the case on hand. In view of the above narration, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of penalty.” 10. As is clear from the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the primary ground on which the Tribunal rejects the claim of the petitioner is by confirming the enquiry report, recommendation and order of compulsory retirement on the ground that the petitioner having not participated in the enquiry proceedings, the charges against him had been proved since the material on record put forth by the respondents had not been challenged, disputed or impeached by him during the course of enquiry. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that he has a good case to urge on merits and in the light of that if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to contest the proceedings and put forth his defence, the petitioner would do so without seeking unnecessary adjournments and would participate in the enquiry proceedings, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 which may be directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law, by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the enquiry report, Lokayukta recommendation and the order of compulsory retirement. It is also submitted that though the petitioner had referred to various documents in support of his defence in his reply to the second show cause notice and also produced the said documents before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not consider the same and summarily dismissed the application thereby affecting the valuable rights of the petitioner and as such the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the enquiry officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Lokayukta as well as learned Additional Government Advocate would submit in unison that sufficient and reasonable opportunity had been provided to the petitioner who willfully did not participate in the enquiry proceedings despite having entered appearance and no indulgence can be shown in favour of the petitioner, who did not exercise due diligence in participating in - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 the enquiry and the impugned orders do not warrant interference by this court in the present petition. 13. As stated supra, both the enquiry report as well as the order passed by the Tribunal will clearly indicate that the primary/main ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and charges are held to be proved is by taking note of the fact that the material produced by the disciplinary authority was not impeached or challenged by the petitioner during the course of enquiry since he merely entered appearance and thereafter did not contest the proceedings. However, in the light of the fact that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the second show cause notice as well as put forth specific contentions about his inability and omission to appear before the enquiry officer was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause on account of work pressure and constant traveling due to official work, in order to provide one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner to contest the proceedings which were decided ex-parte against him, we deem it just and proper to adopt a justice oriented approach and set aside the enquiry report, Lokayuta recommendation, order of - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 compulsory retirement as well as the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the enquiry officer for reconsideration on merits thereby imposing certain conditions upon the petitioner by leaving/keeping upon all contentions to be urged by the parties before the enquiry officer. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The above petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned enquiry report dated 12.06.2018, the impugned Lokayukta recommendation dated 14.06.2018 , the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 06.06.2019 as well as order passed on Application No. 10192 of 2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Court, Belagavi are hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remitted back to the Enquiry Officer of Respondent No.2/Lokayuktha for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer of Respondent No.2/Lokayukta - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11170-DB WP No. 104713 of 2022 on 08.10.2025 without awaiting further notice from the said enquiry officer. v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file pleadings, documents, evidence etc., and also cross-examine the opposite side and proceed further with the matter. vi) The enquiry officer is directed to conclude the enquiry proceedings and submit his report within a period of six months from 08.10.2025. vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9