- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB WP No. 101931 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.101931 OF 2022 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: KUBERSAB M.NADAF S/O. MAHAMMAD SAB, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. CONSTABLE, APC-276, R/O. 2ND CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR, MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580001, DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH RANGE, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB WP No. 101931 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.11.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.7542/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASE TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEARING NO.¹§âA¢-6/²PÉë/2015, DzÉñÀ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ ¸ÀASÉå:151/2015, DATED 15.09.2015 (ANNEXURE-A2) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, ORDER NO.C¦Ã®Ä/31/GªÀ/2015, DATED 20.12.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A3) AND NO.ME 59 ¥ÉƹC 2016 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, DATED 05.10.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A4); II) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE INCREMENTS WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED WHICH ARE POSTPONED BY VIRTUE OF PUNISHMENT ORDER AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) The petitioner, an Armed Police Constable is aggrieved of the imposition of penalty of postponement of three annual increments, and treating the period of suspension of 42 days as suspension period only and is further aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Belagavi, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB WP No. 101931 of 2022 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner along with two other Armed Reserved Constables were deputed on escort duty for taking two prisoners to the District Hospital, Dharwad on 19.01.2015 at 8.30 a.m., for medical treatment and with a duty to bring back the prisoners. One of the prisoners was taken in for x-ray of his knee and on completion, the doctor said that the report will have to be awaited. However, since other prisoner was required to be taken to the dental department, the other two Constables took the said prisoner to the dental department, leaving the petitioner with the other prisoner who had already completed his medical examination and was awaiting the report. After sometime, the prisoner requested the petitioner to permit him to go to the toilet. Accordingly, the petitioner permitted the prisoner to go to the toilet, however, taking advantage of the fact that there were no handcuffs on the prisoner, the prisoner escaped. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that charges were leveled against all the three Constables, however, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB WP No. 101931 of 2022 only petitioner is found guilty and punishment is imposed on the petitioner alone, while discharging the other two Constables. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner seeks to place reliance on the following judgments: 1) Director General of Police and others vs. G. Dasayan1 2) Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. Jitendra Pd. Singh and another2 and 3) Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and others3 4. Learned counsel would contend that the ratio of the judgments is to the effect that similarly situated employees should be dealt with similarly. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the respondent and on perusing the petition papers, we find that the decision in Akhilesh Kumar Singh (supra) in fact goes against the petitioner. The Apex Court has held that quantum of 1 (1998) 2 SCC 407 2 (2001) 10 SCC 530 3 (2008) 2 SCC 74 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB WP No. 101931 of 2022 punishment is imposed on a delinquent employee by the appointing authority, however, it depends upon several factors. Conduct of the delinquent officers as also the nature of the charges play a vital role in this behalf. It was found therein that Charge 1 against the appellant was a very serious one and the other employee with whom the appellant was comparing himself, had not been charged therewith, it cannot be said that the appellant and the other employees were similarly situated. Moreover, it was also found Charge 2 had been partly proved against the other employee whereas the appellant admitted his guilt in relation thereto. 6. Having regard to the admitted facts that at the relevant point of time, admittedly, the petitioner was the only person who was in control of the prisoner and the other two Constables had accompanied the other prisoner to the dental department and therefore, although the charges leveled against all the three Constables were similar, the decision arrived at by the enquiry officer and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB WP No. 101931 of 2022 the respondent-department having regard to the admitted facts, cannot be faulted. It is clear that the petitioner alone was in control of the prisoner who ultimately escaped at the hands of the petitioner and not the other Constables. 7. Coming to the question of whether the punishment imposed on petitioner is commensurate with the charges leveled against the petitioner, it is necessary to notice the observation of the Tribunal that though a major penalty had been suggested in the show cause notice, but taking into consideration that the petitioner has served for ten years, a minor penalty has been imposed. The penalty imposed on the petitioner is postponement of three annual increments and treating the period of suspension (42 days) as suspension period only. This punishment, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be held to be disproportionate to the charges alleged against the petitioner. In fact, the respondents have taken a lenient view and have imposed a minor penalty, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB WP No. 101931 of 2022 although it was suggested that major penalty be imposed on the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE NAA CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38