1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.15686 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. R. VENKATESH S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RETIRED), C/O SRI. NATARAJ, AMRUTHA VARSHA NILAYA, 14TH CROSS, ST. THOMAS CONVENT ROAD, CHAMUNDESWARI NAGAR, MANDYA - 571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY D V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, D.P.A.R., VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL REGIONAL COMMISSIONER KALBURGI DIVISION, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka 2 KALBURGI - 585 101. 4. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) OPP UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE AFORESAID PORTION OF THE ORDER AS THE SAME IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF LAND, AND TO DIRECT THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE ENCASHMENT BENEFIT OF EARNED LEAVE AT CREDIT OF THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT ON 28.02.2014 WITH INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT ON 28.02.2014 TILL ITS PAYMENT TO THE PETITIONER AND TO EXTEND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ARISING THERETO; b) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS OR ISSUE SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.03.2021, in Application No.3052 of 2020, passed by the 3 Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal allowed the application in part, setting-aside the impugned enquiry report dated 28.02.2018, passed by the third respondent, vide Annexure-A28 and the impugned Government Order bearing No.C Aa Su E 17 KEV 2013, dated 02.07.2020, passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-A31, however, in view of serious allegations made against the petitioner, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Enquiring Officer to conduct the enquiry afresh, in view of the observations made in the impugned order. 2. A brief outline of facts leading to the filing of the present petition is as under: The petitioner was appointed on 13.04.1977 as Stenographer in the Department of Revenue, thereafter promoted to the cadre of Sheristedar during the year 1988, then Tahasildar Grade-2 in the year 1996, then Tahasildar Grade-1 during 2007 and to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner during 2010. He worked as Assistant Commissioner in Bellary from 18.02.2010 upto 4 06.09.2011. The petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. By a notification dated 28.02.1985, the Government appointed a Forest Settlement Officer for the purpose of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. As per the said notification, the Forest Settlement Officer, Bellary, was appointed to represent the State Government in the enquiry in respect of the land at Ramamalai Block of Ramagada Village. After a lapse of 23 years from the date of the aforesaid notification, the predecessor of the petitioner to the post of Forest Settlement Officer by name Sri.Kashinath Pawar issued a declaration dated 01.09.2009 at Annexure-A2 and invited objections from public in respect of the aforesaid land. The said declaration was also published in the Karnataka Gazette on 08.09.2009 as per Annexure-A3. The aforesaid Notification dated 28.02.1985 was also published after 24 years in Karnataka Gazette dated 04.02.2010, produced as per Annexure-A1. 5 4. The petitioner reported to duty as Assistant Commissioner, Bellary Sub-Division, Bellary on 18.02.2010 and on the same day, he had also reported to the duty to the post of Forest Settlement Officer, Bellary. 5. The petitioner issued an order dated 24.05.2010, stating as per the Enclosure-H Map, 265 acres of land found in Ramgada Block of Ramgada Village cannot be termed as reserved forest area in terms of the Rules, holding that the Rules under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 are not applicable as the said area comprises of private lands, patta lands, roads, buildings, churches, schools, bungalows, tank bunds and village. Further, directed the office to prepare map in respect of area in occupation of private lands, roads, etc., stated supra and applications filed thereof be placed for consideration, before the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary and directed the office to request the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary for survey of land. 6. Subsequently, the Government vide order dated 05.09.2011 cancelled the order passed by the petitioner. 6 Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Assistant Commissioner, Bellary Sub Division, Bellary to the post of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Seabird, Karwar. He was relieved from service on 05.09.2011 and reported to the place of posting. 7. A notice dated 23.07.2013, along with articles of charge came to be issued by respondent no.1 against the petitioner quoting that the petitioner showed dereliction of duty while discharging duty as Forest Settlement Officer. As per the appellant the reply by him to the notice and articles of charges was not considered. The first respondent appointed third respondent as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the applicant as per order dated 28.02.2014. The Enquiry Officer after holding an enquiry, submitted his report to the respondent No.1. On the basis of the report to the respondent No.1, the first respondent issued impugned order dated 02.07.2020, imposing penalty of withholding of encashment benefit in respect of earned leave to the 7 credit of the applicant and withholding 50% of pension payable to the applicant prospectively. 8. Aggrieved by the enquiry report, as well as the punishment imposed, the petitioner knocked the doors of KSAT in Application No.3052/2020 contending interalia that the enquiry was not conducted properly, the charges of dereliction of duty in the absence of evidence are very vague, the Enquiry Officer has not allowed the petitioner to place the documents on record, lead evidence of his witnesses and without properly appreciating the documents and materials, conducted the enquiry against the Rules envisaged under Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short ‘KCS (CCA) Rules’) and sought to set-aside the report as well as the order of punishment issued by the Government i.e., the regular appointing authority and sought to allow the application. 9. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent- State appeared and filed the statement of objection denying the case of the petitioner and stated that 8 subsequent to the approval of the Minister of Revenue to initiate a disciplinary action, against the petitioner, issued show cause notice along with articles of charges under Rule-11 of KCS (CCA) Rules 1957, by the Competent Authority with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The petitioner has not properly discharged his duty as Forest Settlement Officer and passed an order dated 24.05.2010 on an incomplete and unclear spot inspection, detrimental to the interest of the state. 10. It is contended that, the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice with Articles of Charges was forwarded to respondent no.2 for his opinion and respondent no.2 subsequent to the approval of Minister of Revenue had opined to proceed further in the departmental proceeding as the reply by the petitioner was not accepted. Accordingly, the Additional Regional Commissioner (Administration And Development) Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and Tahsildar, Hospet Taluk was appointed as the Presenting Officer and the enquiry was conducted in a fair 9 manner giving all opportunities to the petitioner. A second show cause notice came to be issued subsequent to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer enclosing the enquiry report. The petitioner refused to accept the enquiry report and had requested to drop the proceedings against him. 11. The State further has contended that after appreciating the reply to the second show cause notice, the competent authority imposed the penalty supra, under Rule-214 of KCSR and concurrence of the Secretary of Karnataka Public Service Commission was sought vide dated 02.07.2019 and the same has been accorded by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short ‘KPSC’) on 15.06.2020. Accordingly, the Government Order dated 02.07.2020, was issued imposing punishments stated supra and as such, contended that the enquiry conducted and the order passed thereon are in accordance with Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1957, and sought to dismiss the application. 10 12. The KSAT after considering the rival contentions had formed an opinion that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner, as contemplated under Rule-11(18) of the KCS (CCA) Rules 1957 and accordingly, set aside the impugned report, as well as the order passed thereon and remitted the matter again to the Enquiry Officer to hold a de-novo enquiry, by taking into consideration of the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It is this order called in question in the present petition only to the extent of remanding the matter to the Enquiry Officer, for de-novo enquiry. 13. Heard Sri. Vijaya Simha Reddy D.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri.Khamroz Khan, for respondent nos. 1 to 4, perused the entire writ petition papers. 14. Mr. Reddy taking us through Annexure-A1 i.e., the notification dated 28.02.1985 and the corrigendum issued thereafter dated 06.09.2012 at Annexure-A23 and a declaration dated 02.11.2012 at Annexsure-A24, submitted that, the area shown in Annexure-A1 - the 11 notification dated 28.02.1985, i.e., the area of 265 acres of land is not coming within the enclosure-H reserved forest area zone and the same was included by the Corrigendum dated 06.09.2012, which is clear from declaration dated 02.11.2012. On this, he has stated that the order passed by petitioner at Annexure-A14 dated 24.05.2010 holding that the area of 265 acres is not coming within the reserve forest area and directing the office to seek a survey from the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary for disposal of the applications, in respect of occupation of the said land cannot be found fault with. The said order has been passed by the petitioner discharging a quasi-judicial function as a Forest Settlement Officer under notification dated 28.02.1985 and the same cannot now be termed as illegal/not sustainable and that the petitioner has discharged his function with all due diligence while holding so and submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider these facts which has resulted in remitting the matter and sought to allow the petition. 12 15. Alternatively, he has submitted that the petitioner is now 70 years of age and suffering from age related infirmities. He has filed a representation on 23.06.2021 requesting the Government to close the enquiry and in the event, a fresh inquiry is proposed, the venue of the enquiry may be fixed at Mandya, Mysore or Bengaluru. 16. Refuting the submissions of Sri.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Khamroz Khan, vehemently submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. The land involved is 265 acres which comes within the purview of reserved forest area. He has taken us through the declaration dated 02.11.2012 wherein the order passed by the petitioner was cancelled by a Government order dated 05.09.2011 and the general public are instructed not to deal with any of the land that comes within the said area. 17. He has further submitted that as the petitioner has taken a contention before the Tribunal that his documents were not taken on record and his witnesses 13 were not permitted to be examined, the Tribunal was of the view that the enquiry was not conducted in terms of Rule-11 of KCS (CCA) Rules, and in that view of the matter remanded the case to the Enquiry Officer for a de- novo enquiry. As such, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court and sought to dismiss the petition. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire petition papers, the only question which arose for our consideration is: “Whether the Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter to the Enquiry Officer?” 19. Our answer to the above question is in ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons: As could be seen from paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has formed an opinion that the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity to produce the documents, in his defence and the same is required to be considered by the Enquiry Officer during the 14 enquiry. The petitioner in this petition is relying on the same documents which he wanted to produce before the Enquiry Officer in his defence to the allegations. If that be so, without these documents being placed before the Enquiry Officer, passed through a text of evidence and a finding thereon by the Enquiry Officer, it is not proper either for the Tribunal or for this Court to dwell upon the said documents. It is for the Enquiry Officer to take into consideration of the said documents and the evidence to be led by the petitioner in his defence. 20. In that view of the matter, we see no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal. As the Tribunal cautiously stated, particularly at paragraph no.11, that without dwelling into other contentions of the parties, only on the issue of not holding enquiry in terms of Rule-11 of KCS (CCA) Rules, the orders were set-aside and the matter was remanded to hold enquiry in terms of Rules prescribed, as such, we decline to entertain this petition. 21. So far as the contention of Sri.Reddy that the petitioner a septuagenarian suffering from age related 15 illness and is unable to attend enquiry at Kalburagi, which would put him to much hardship requires consideration. In view of his representation before the State dated 23.06.2021 and in view of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority is directed to hold an enquiry in the Office of either respondent no.2 or respondent no. 4 at Bengaluru after affording proper opportunities as contemplated under the Rules and law and conclude the enquiry within a period of six months. 22. With these observations, we pass the following order: i) The writ petition calling in question the order passed by the KSAT dated 25.03.2021, in Application No.3052 of 2020 sans merit and accordingly, dismissed. ii) The respondent authorities are directed to hold denova enquiry against the petitioner in terms of the impugned order passed by the KSAT stated supra in the office of either respondent 16 no. 2 or respondent no. 4, after affording proper opportunity to both the parties, i.e., to the petitioner as well as the State. iii) The Enquiry Officer shall conclude the enquiry keeping in mind the observations made by the KSAT in its order dated 25.03.2021, in Application No.3052 of 2020 in regard to the age of the petitioner as well, within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) All contentions of the parties are left open. v) No order as to cost. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26