- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 17015 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, NRUPATHINGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA) AND: SRI UDYA KUMAR S/O B ANANTHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, R/AT NO.E-15, ST. JOHN’S QUARTERS, BENGALURU - 560 029. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H. M., ADV.) Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS; B) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1812/202 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 petitioners-State Authorities in the Department of School Education and Literacy are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 13.12.2024 in Application No.1812/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) whereunder the respondent’s challenge to order of penalty dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure-A16), imposing withholding of a sum of Rs.5,000/- every month from his pension, for a period of two years is quashed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 2. The brief facts of the case are that: When the respondent was working as Assistant Director, Articles of Charge dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure-A12) was issued, alleging six charges. In sum and substance, charge against the respondent was that the respondent kept pending more than 5000 files without attending to it and without entering the same in the e-portal of the department and was responsible for not sending those letters/files in time, which amounted to misconduct. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that charge Nos.1 to 6 are proved against the respondent. The petitioners-State issued second show-cause notice dated 10.01.2023 enclosing the enquiry report to the respondent. On receipt of the reply from the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority under Government Order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure-A16) imposed punishment of withholding a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from his pension, for a period of 2 years, under Rule 214(1)(a) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 Questioning the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent was before the Tribunal in Application No.1812/2024. The Tribunal, on the ground that the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence on record both oral and documentary and also on the ground that there is delay in initiating enquiry, quashed the order of penalty dated 05.09.2023, with a direction to pay all consequential benefits including financial benefits to the respondent to which he would be legally entitled to. Questioning the said order, the State Authorities in Educational Department are before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned AGA Sri.B.Ravindranath for petitioners-State Authorities and learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy for respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned AGA would contend that all the charges against the respondent are proved and on the proved - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 misconduct, penalty of withholding Rs.5,000/- per month from the pension of the respondent is imposed, which the Tribunal could not have interfered lightly. Learned AGA would submit that the Enquiry Officer, in his report has taken note of the contentions of the respondent/DGO and on appreciation of evidence on record has rightly held that the charges are proved against the respondent. It is further submitted that the Tribunal is not right in giving a finding that the Enquiry Officer has failed to appreciate the evidence both oral and documentary on record. Learned AGA further contended that the scope of interference in the matter of departmental enquiry is very limited and when the charges are proved based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal committed a grave error in interfering with the order of penalty. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy for respondent would submit that the Enquiry Officer has extracted the evidence of each of the witnesses and there is no discussion as to how the Enquiry - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent are proved. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the report of the Enquiry Officer and would submit that only in one paragraph the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges against the respondent are proved, without assigning any reason. Learned counsel Sri.Sarathy would further submit that when the Enquiry Officer has failed to appreciate the material, both oral and documentary evidence on record, the finding would result in perversity. Accordingly, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of penalty. Moreover, learned counsel would submit that there is no allegation of loss caused to the Government and in the said circumstances, when neither the Enquiry Officer nor Disciplinary Authority has recorded a finding that there is grave negligence or there is grave misconduct, the Authorities could not have imposed punishment of withholding of Rs.5,000/- per month from the pension of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 the respondent for a period of two years. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel 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 impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court? 7. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: From a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has proceeded to quash the impugned order of punishment dated 05.09.2023 on two counts. One is that the Enquiry Officer has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and without assigning any reason has held that, charges are proved, which amounts to perverse finding. The other count on which the penalty is quashed is that the charges are vague. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 8. We have gone through the enquiry report which is placed on record as Annexure-A14 along with second show-cause notice which is produced as Annexure-A13. A perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that though the enquiry report is of 25 pages, 24 pages contain the facts, evidence and contention of the respondent-DGO, while the finding is recorded in only one paragraph, which is as follows: “¤tðAiÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÁgÁA±À D¥Á¢vÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ C£ÀħAzsÀ-1 gÀ°è£À MlÄÖ 06 DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ «ZÁgÀuÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À, ºÉýPÉ, ªÀÄAqÀ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼À °TvÀªÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥Á¢vÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ °TvÀ ªÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀAvÉ C£ÀħAzsÀ-01 jAzÀ 06 gÀªÀgÉV£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrzÉ.” In the above paragraph, the Enquiry Officer has held that charges No.1 to 6 are proved against the respondent. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that mere extraction of charges and evidence led before the Enquiry Officer would not be sufficient to hold the charges proved against - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 the delinquent official. The duty of the Enquiry Officer is to discuss and appreciate the evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion. The Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ANIL KUMAR v/s PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in (1985) 3 SCC 378, wherein it is held that the Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind to the evidence and did not assign a single reason as to why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not credit-worthy. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that an enquiry report in a quasi judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse-dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. Keeping in mind the above principle, when enquiry report in the instant case is perused, the above principle would have an application and the report of the Enquiry Officer is a non-reasoned report. Hence, no interference is needed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38031-DB WP No. 17015 of 2025 in the order passed by the Tribunal insofar as the said finding is concerned. 9. The Tribunal is also right in coming to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent are vague. A perusal of the charge memo does not give any particulars. The charge memo would not disclose the period during which the respondent kept the letters pending without entering it into the e-portal and during which period, he had not sent the letters in time. Thus, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12