- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5433-DB WP No. 106364 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.106364 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SHRI CHETAN INGALGANVI, S/O BASAPPA, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. SERVING AS CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE, CPC NO.2862, DHARWAD SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, R/O. NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, HOSUR-RABKAVI 587314, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT, E-MAIL: chetaningalaganvi007@gmail.com MOBILE NO.9740393946 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND L. SANDRIMANI AND SRI. SANTOSH RAWOOT, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA NO.2, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560001, KARNATAKA, E-MAIL: police_ksp@gov.in 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBALLI 580025, E-MAIL: compolhalc@ksp.gov.in MOBILE NO.9480802001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) 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 MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5433-DB WP No. 106364 of 2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARENATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10822/2022 DATED. 13-04-2023 AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is a Police Constable, is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Application No.10822/2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby his application questioning the order of penalty dated 06.01.2022 and order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.05.2022 has been rejected. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri. Anand L.Sandrimani & Sri. Santhosh B.Rawoot appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Advocate, Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar appearing for the respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5433-DB WP No. 106364 of 2023 4. The writ petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly from 01.08.2019 to 03.08.2020. A charge sheet dated 25.02.2021, under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Police (Discipline) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘1965 Rules’) was issued to the writ petitioner. An inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his Report dated 28.09.2021 holding that the charge of misconduct of unauthorized absence from 01.08.2019 to 03.08.2020 is proved. The petitioner was served with the inquiry report and second show cause notice calling upon him to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply. On considering the reply and the entire enquiry report, by order dated 06.01.2022 penalty of reduction of petitioner’s salary to minimum of Police Constable pay scale for 10 years without affecting future annual increment, was imposed and the absence period was treated as leave without allowance. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 16.05.2022. 5. Aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.10822/2022. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, confirmed the order of penalty observing that the punishment did not seem to be harsh for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5433-DB WP No. 106364 of 2023 proved misconduct of unauthorized absence. Questioning the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the inquiry report is baseless and the Inquiry Officer, without appreciating the material on record, concluded that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved. He submits that there is no material to prove the charge and therefore, he submits that interference is called for. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had given detailed reason for his absence which is not considered by the Inquiry Officer or by the Appellate Authority. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that the penalty imposed is a lesser penalty. He submits that remaining absent unauthorizedly for more than a year warrants imposition of major punishment in terms of Rule 108 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5433-DB WP No. 106364 of 2023 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere either with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal or with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, for the following reasons: The petitioner is working as Police Constable in a disciplined Police Force of the State. In a disciplined Police Force, high standard of discipline is expected from a police personnel. The petitioner cannot remain absent unauthorisedly for more than a year without applying for leave or without there being any reason. The petitioner had not seriously disputed he remaining unauthorisedly absent from 01.08.2019 to 03.08.2020. The petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 25.02.2021 for imposing major penalty under Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules. The petitioner had opportunity to defend himself before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer, on appreciating the material on record including the oral evidence, came to the conclusion that the charge of unauthorized absence against the petitioner is proved. The enquiry held is in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5433-DB WP No. 106364 of 2023 1965 Rules. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been provided sufficient opportunity before the inquiry officer. When the petitioner is afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry and when the Inquiry Officer, based on the material on record, has come to the conclusion that the charges are proved, normally, this Court would not interfere with such finding. The penalty of reduction of petitioner’s salary to the minimum of Police constable for 10 years without affecting the future annual increment and treating the absence period as leave without allowance would suffice and the same appears to be proportionate to the gravity of the charge leveled against the petitioner. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7