- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:876-DB WP No. 108005 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 108005 OF 2024 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI. VINOD S/O. KRISHNAPPA PATTAR, AGED MAJOR, OCC. FDRC, R/O. KAMATAGI VILLAGE, NAVANAGAR, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (SERVICE-2), M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:876-DB WP No. 108005 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24-12-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI BENCH IN APPLICATION NO.13478/2024 AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision to remove him from service as a First Division Assistant [F.D.A.] with the second respondent, and the petitioner has called in question this decision with the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal [‘the Tribunal’] in Application No.13478/2024. The petitioner has sought for interim order as against his dismissal from service, and the Tribunal has issued - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:876-DB WP No. 108005 of 2024 notice to the respondents without granting interim order. The petitioner has called in question this order in the present writ petition. The petitioner’s grievance as against the Tribunal’s decision to issue just notice without interim order is considered in the light of the following facts. 2. The concerned has begun departmental proceedings under the Karnataka Civil Service [Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short ‘the KCSR Rules’] along with the commencement of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The departmental proceedings are pending, but the petitioner has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Crl.A.No.100369/2024 before this Court in an appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:876-DB WP No. 108005 of 2024 3. This Court has considered the petitioner’s request for interim order in the appeal in Criminal Appeal in No.100369/2024 by its order dated 10.07.2024, and this Court has granted interim order. The operative portion in its relevant part for the present proceedings reads as under:- "(b) The judgment of convection dated 24.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 25.06.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.5/2018 passed by the Principal District and Session Judge, Bagalkot is suspended. (c) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum and he is ordered to deposit the fine amount within four weeks form today." This Court has also admitted the appeal. However, the second respondent, because the appellant is convicted, has issued order dated 13.08.2024 dismissing the petitioner from service notwithstanding this interim order. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:876-DB WP No. 108005 of 2024 4. Sri Sunil S. Desai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s conviction has not attained finality as the Criminal Appeal in No.100369/2024 is admitted and until then, the second respondent could not have passed the dismissal order because the petitioner is convicted. The learned counsel also submits that there is no conviction against the petitioner as this Court has stayed not just the sentence but also the conviction by its order dated 10.07.2024. Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, the learned Principal Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondent, submits that the petitioner would not be entitled for any indulgence because Rule 14 of the KCSR Rules operates as an exception to the requirement of an enquiry under these Rules when a Government servant is convicted, and there could be dismissal upon such conviction. 5. The question that will have to be considered is: whether a conviction would justify a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:876-DB WP No. 108005 of 2024 decision to impose a penalty under Rule 14 of KCSR Rules when such conviction is stayed in a pending appeal. The stay of the petitioner’s conviction in the criminal appeal is a material circumstance. The Tribunal should have examined the same in deciding on the petitioner’s request for the stay of dismissal. The Tribunal’s failure to examine these circumstances offers a reason for interference in this petition. As such, the following: ORDER [a] The writ petition is allowed in part staying the operation of the second respondent’s order dated 13.08.2024 to be in force until the Tribunal considers the petitioner’s request for interim order after the pleadings are complete or until the final disposal of the application whichever is earlier. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:876-DB WP No. 108005 of 2024 [b] The respondents are reserved with liberty to move the Tribunal for early decision on the interim request/final disposal. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE VMB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35