- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33167-DB WP No. 6539 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 6539 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 KARNATAKA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT, AND LAND RECORDS, K. R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU …PETITIONERS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA) AND: 1. SANJEEVARAYAPPA K. H., S/O HULIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SURVEYOR, O/O THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, MAGADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, R/A MANJUNATH LAYOUT, KALYA GATE, MAGADI. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33167-DB WP No. 6539 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 PASSED IN A. No. 4459 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The State is before this Court questioning the order dated 17.01.2023 in Application No.4459/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') allowing the respondent's application questioning the order of dismissal from service. 2. The relevant facts are that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent by issuing a charge memo dated 18.03.2021 (Annexue-A1). On conducting a detailed enquiry, the enquiry report dated 04.03.2022 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges are not proved. The petitioner-Disciplinary Authority issued a second show- cause notice dated 04.06.2022 enclosing enquiry report calling - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33167-DB WP No. 6539 of 2025 upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. Respondent submitted his reply on 16.06.2022 thereafter, under impugned order dated 20.09.2022, the petitioner-Disciplinary Authority in exercise of its power under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules'), imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on respondent. Questioning the said order, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.4459/2022. Under impugned order dated 17.01.2023, the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty dated 20.09.2022 solely on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded its findings or recorded reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Ravindranath, learned AGA for petitioner. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned AGA would contend that there is no definite finding by the Enquiry Officer to exonerate the respondent of the charges. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are not proved against the respondent solely on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33167-DB WP No. 6539 of 2025 the ground that the criminal proceedings are pending against the respondent. Therefore, he submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to assign any reason in the second show-cause notice issued to the respondent. Learned AGA would submit that the charge against the respondent is very serious that is accepting illegal gratification for showing official favour. In that circumstances, learned AGA would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned AGA as well as on going through the entire writ papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. A perusal of the enquiry report (Annexure-A4), the Enquiry Officer has observed that from the records and the evidence, the charges against the respondent-DGO of demanding and accepting the bribe is not proved. 7. Rule 11-A(2) of CCA Rules reads as follows: "(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficenet for the purpose." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33167-DB WP No. 6539 of 2025 A reading of the above Rule makes it abundantly clear that the Disciplinary Authority is conferred with power to disagree with the findings of enquiring authority on any articles of charge, by recording such reasons for disagreement and record its own findings if the evidence on record is sufficient for the said purpose. 8. The petitioner-Disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice dated 04.06.2022 (Annexure-A5), which reads as follows: " ²æà PÉ ºÉZï ¸ÀAfêÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, ºÁ° ¨sÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj ªÀiÁUÀr DzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ F »AzÉ UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸À ¤ PÀbÉÃj, `E°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, F¸ÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆç½, ¨sÀPÀÛgÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸.À £ÀA. 44 gÀ vÀvÁÌ¯ï ¥ÉÆÃr ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ºÀtPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ §UÉÎ, G¯ÉèÃRzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ, ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ, ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÄïÉ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½-1957 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ KPÉ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.06.2022 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33167-DB WP No. 6539 of 2025 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ RÄzÀÄÝ ºÁdgÁV, «ªÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹zÉ." 9. A perusal of the above second show-cause notice, it is clear that the respondent was called upon to appear before the Commissioner of land records and to explain as to why further action should not be taken under CCA Rules. 10. Admittedly, the charges are not proved against the respondent. In the enquiry, when charges are not proved, certainly it is open for the petitioner-Disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer if there is sufficient evidence on record for such disagreement. The second show-cause notice would not record any such disagreement on the basis of the evidence on record. The Tribunal is right in observing that no reasons are recorded for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer nor their own findings recorded on the materials available on record. Second show-cause notice is opposed to and contrary to Rule 11-A(2) of CCA Rules. The respondent had no opportunity to make any explanation. When no reasons are recorded for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, more so - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33167-DB WP No. 6539 of 2025 when the enquiry report is in favour of the respondent, the respondent would not be in a position to reply effectively. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition fails and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20