- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33014-DB WP No. 7897 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 7897 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), IN KARNATAKA, RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 &PETITIONERS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA) AND: 1. L. LINGARAJU, S/O LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, No.498/20, 33RD 'A' MAIN ROAD, M.G. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 6TH STAGE, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33014-DB WP No. 7897 of 2025 2. SRI B. SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAVALINGE GOWDA S., RETIRED HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT, No.102, HONGIGRANA, REGENCY PARK, K. NARAYANAPURA, KOTHANOOR POST, BENGALURU-560 077 &RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION Nos.5153-5154/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 K.V. ARAVIND) The State has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 17.07.2023 in Application Nos. 5153-5154/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 8the Tribunal9). 2. The facts in brief are that, while the respondents were in service, a joint departmental enquiry was instituted by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33014-DB WP No. 7897 of 2025 issuing a charge memo under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 8CCA Rules9) on 29.06.2016, alleging that the private respondents, while working in the RTO Office, K.R. Puram, failed to supervise the work in the Treasury Division, which resulted in the misappropriation of Government funds to the extent of Rs.8,95,539/- by one Sri K. Somesh, SDA. The notice issued was duly replied to. Not satisfied with the explanation, Respondent No.1 appointed an Enquiry Officer by order dated 12.02.2018. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 26.02.2019, holding that the charges against the private respondents were not established. 3. The Disciplinary Authority issued a second show- cause notice, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The private respondents submitted their reply; however, no decision was taken on the enquiry report. In the meantime, the respondents retired from service, and their retirement benefits were withheld in view of the pendency of the departmental enquiry. Respondent No.1 filed a representation and approached the Tribunal, which directed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33014-DB WP No. 7897 of 2025 that the reply be considered. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 imposed the punishment of withholding 5% of their monthly pension for a period of six months under Rule 214(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The said order was thereafter challenged before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, holding that no opportunity was granted after inviting a reply to the second show-cause notice prior to the imposition of penalty, quashed the order of punishment withholding 5% of the respondents9 pension. 5. Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner-State, submits that the Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the enquiry report, recorded its own finding on the evidence on record and held that the respondents had committed misconduct. It is submitted that the Tribunal, without examining the evidence on record, committed an error in setting aside the order of penalty. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner- State, we note that the period of the alleged misconduct relates - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33014-DB WP No. 7897 of 2025 to 2013-14. Articles of charge were issued in the year 2016, and the enquiry report, submitted on 26.02.2019, held that the charges were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a second show-cause notice on 14.05.2020. In the meantime, the respondents retired from service, and their retirement benefits were withheld in view of the pendency of the departmental enquiry. 7. The respondents were compelled to make a representation and approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the release of their retirement benefits. It is only at this stage that the order of punishment was passed on 01.10.2022, imposing the penalty of deducting 5% of their pension for a period of six months. The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty on 17.07.2023, and the State has preferred the present writ petition only on 14.03.2025. 8. Having regard to the fact that the incident pertains to the period 2013-14, the enquiry report was submitted in favour of the respondents, and the order of penalty was passed only in the year 2022, after the retirement of the respondents and when they were around 64 years of age, it cannot be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33014-DB WP No. 7897 of 2025 regarded as reasonable. Further, although the impugned order of the Tribunal is dated 17.07.2023, the averments in the petition do not provide any explanation for the delay. As of this date, the respondents are 66 years old, and issuance of notice after such a long interval would not only cause hardship but may also amount to harassment. 9. Moreover, no reasons for disagreement on the evidence on record is recorded. We are, therefore, not inclined to treat the delay in filing this writ petition as reasonable. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, without examining the merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44