1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.19256/2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KOLAR- 563101, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA) AND: SRI T.V. SRINIVASA S/O SRI VENKARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS CPC-472, POLICE CONSTABLE GOUNIPALLI POLICE STATION SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT R/AT VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.R. SARATHY, ADV. FOR SRI H.M. NAGENDRA, ADV. FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS; ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTION TO QUASH THE 2 ORDER DATED 20.08.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.707/2024 VIDE ANNX-A & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 11.07.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This writ petition by the Superintendent of Police, Kolar filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 20.08.2024 in Application No.707/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the endorsement dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure-A4) and dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure-A5) is quashed with a direction to treat the period from 29.05.2019 till 18.01.2023 as duty period and to release the pay and allowances of the respondent. 3 2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy for Sri.H.M.Nagendra, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Respondent, a civil Police Constable was dismissed form service as a penalty by order dated 29.04.2019. Prior to his dismissal, the respondent was under suspension from 16.09.2017. Questioning the order of dismissal, the respondent was before the Tribunal in Application No.2026/2022. The Tribunal under order dated 11.10.2022 allowed the application, quashed the order of dismissal dated 29.04.2019 and directed the petitioner-Government to reinstate the respondent into service and to pay all consequential including financial benefits to the applicant, DGO No.2 to which he is legally entitled to. As the petitioner failed to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 4 11.10.2022 in Application No.2026/2022, the respondent was before the Tribunal in Contempt of Tribunal Application No.62/2023. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, petitioner by order dated 13.01.2023 reinstated the respondent, treated the period of suspension from 16.09.2017 to 29.05.2019 as period on duty, but treated the period during which the respondent was out of service as ‘dies-non’. The petitioner has filed affidavit along with the order dated 13.01.2023 before the Tribunal in Contempt proceedings. The Tribunal disposed of the contempt proceedings by order dated 18.08.2023 holding that the accused, petitioner herein has rightly treated the period between the date of dismissal and reinstatement as dies-non and cannot be faulted in that regard. Thereafter, the respondent submitted one more representation dated 04.02.2023 to the petitioner and the petitioner under endorsement dated 5 18.03.2023 rejected the respondent’s request to treat the period during which he was out of service as duty period. Questioning the same, the respondent was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 18.08.2023 setting aside the endorsement, directed the petitioner to treat the period during which the respondent was out of service as, on duty and to pay all consequential benefits. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the respondent was dismissed from service on 29.04.2019 and was relieved of his duties on 29.05.2019 and was reinstated into service on 18.01.2023 in pursuance to the Tribunal’s order dated 11.10.2022 in Application No.2026/2022. It is submitted that respondent was out of service from 29.05.2019 to 18.01.2023, for which period the respondent would not be entitled for salary by treating the said period as on duty. Learned Additional 6 Advocate General mainly contends that in the light of the finding of the Tribunal in the contempt proceedings filed by the respondent in Contempt of Tribunal Application No.62/2023 to the effect that the petitioner has rightly treated the period between the date of dismissal and reinstatement as dies-non, the Tribunal could not have, in a subsequent application directed the petitioner to treat the period during which respondent was out of service as, on duty. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy would submit that the respondent was never convicted in the criminal proceedings and moreover he submits that the respondent has independent right to challenge the endorsement dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure-A5) of the petitioner refusing to treat the period as, on duty, during which the respondent was out of service. Since the respondent was not convicted and respondent’s dismissal is held to be illegal, the 7 petitioner is bound to treat the period from dismissal to reinstatement as, on duty. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, Whether the Tribunal in the light of its finding in Contempt of Tribunal Application No.62/2023 could direct to treat the period during which respondent was out of service as on duty in a subsequent proceedings? 7. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons: The respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 29.04.2019 and was reinstated on 13.01.2023 by implementing order dated 11.10.2022 in Application No.2026/2022. The respondent was 8 before the Tribunal in Contempt of Tribunal Application No.62/2023 complaining disobedience of order dated 11.10.2022 in Application No.2026/2022. While disposing of the contempt proceedings, taking note of the order of reinstatement dated 13.01.2023 wherein the period during which the respondent was out of service, the Tribunal has held as follows: “6. It is seen from the documents that the accused/respondent has reinstated the complainant into service and treated the suspension period as duty and also paid all the financial benefits including the increment consequent to pay fixation. However, it is seen that the intervening period between dismissal and reinstatement of the complainant has been treated as ‘dies non’, as a result of which the complainant is not entitled to get his pay between the date of dismissal and date of reinstatement. As regards the contention of the complainant to treat this period as ‘duty’, we have examined the same by placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 9 Union of India and Others Vs. Jaipal Singh reported in (2004) 1 SCC 121 wherein it has been held that employee dismissed from service on conviction and reinstated on acquittal in appeal is not entitled to back wages for period of absence i.e., from the date of dismissal to reinstatement and categorically held that such a reinstated employee is only entitled to back wages only from date of acquittal, unless the acquittal of the employee was at the behest of the employer. In the present case, the complainant was dismissed from service due to a Criminal Complaint filed against him in Cr.No.291/2017 involving some personal issues between him and his colleagues which led to taking disciplinary action against him and resulting in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. Later on, the same was challenged before this Tribunal in A.No.2026 of 2022 and the dismissal order was set aside. In other words, the dismissal of the complainant from service was not at the behest of the employer but due to his involvement in some Criminal case 10 resulting in disciplinary enquiry and consequent dismissal. Therefore, the present case is squarely covered by the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the dismissal of the complainant was based on a criminal proceedings and consequent disciplinary enquiry against the complainant, the accused/respondent is well within his right to deny back wages to the complainant for the period that he was not in service in term of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement cited supra. Therefore, the accused/respondent has rightly treated the period between the date of dismissal and the reinstatement as ‘dies-non’ and he cannot be faulted in this regard. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the accusation of the complainant and we are of the considered view that the accused/respondent has complied with the direction of this Tribunal passed in A.No.2026/2022 dated 11.10.2022 and therefore the contempt proceedings are dropped.” 8. The Tribunal has categorically held that the accused i.e., petitioner herein has rightly treated the 11 period between the date of dismissal and reinstatement as dies-non and cannot be faulted in that regard. The said order passed in the contempt proceedings has attained finality. Contrary to the said finding, in a subsequent proceedings filed by the respondent, the Tribunal could not have come to a different conclusion to direct to treat the period during which respondent was out of service as on duty. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is an independent right to challenge the subsequent endorsement dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure-A5). However, the finding of a Court or Tribunal which has attained finality would be binding on both the parties. It cannot be upset by the same Court or Tribunal in a subsequent proceedings. The impugned order of the Tribunal is contrary to the order dated 18.08.2023 in Contempt of Tribunal Application No.62/2023 between the same parties. The Tribunal ignoring its finding in 12 the earlier proceedings committed an error in directing to treat the period during which the respondent was out of service as, on duty. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER 1) Writ petition is allowed. 2) Order dated 20.08.2024 in Application No.707/2024 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT: bms