- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 148868 OF 2020 (S-DE) BETWEEN: SRI. ANANTHDAS NARAYANDAS PUNIEKAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FIRST DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT, GADAG-BETAGERI CITY, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIA TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR MARGA, SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-582101. 4. PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN CELL, GADAG, DIST: GADAG-582101. 5. THE COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GADAG-BETAGERI, DIST: GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR R.GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.8944 DMA 218 EQBEG 2014 DATED 21/05/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16(1) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IN SO FOR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 21.05.2020 vide Annexure-P passed by the respondent No.2 imposing major penalty of demotion together with recovery from the petitioner and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was working as a First Divisional Assistant1 in Shiggaon, Pattan Panchayath upto 07.12.2001, where he handed over charge to one P.F. Kabadar, who took over charge as the FDA, since the petitioner was transferred to Bagalkote, CMC in the year 2001. An audit was conducted in the Shiggaon, Pattan Panchayath in the year 2003, on the basis of which, the respondent No.2- 1 For short, ‘FDA’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 Director of Municipal Administration decided to conduct enquiry and accordingly, issued Article of Charge dated 15.07.2015 against the petitioner and two other officials. 4. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 11.08.2015, denying the various allegations made against him and requested the respondent No.2 to drop the proposed enquiry against him. Despite the aforesaid reply dated 11.08.2015 submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry and accordingly, appointed an enquiry officer who submitted his report in the year 2017, holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner informed the enquiry officer that he was not working as a FDA in Shiggaon, Pattan Panchayath at the time of audit and there was some other officer at that point of time and necessary documents are to be summoned to the said person who was working as the FDA in Shiggaon, Pattan Panchayath at the time of audit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 5. The said request of the petitioner was not considered by the enquiry officer, who proceeded to submit a report to the effect that charges are proved. In pursuance of the said report of the enquiry officer holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved, the respondent No.2 issued a second show cause notice to which the petitioner submitted a reply vide Annexures-K and L dated 20.09.2017 and 03.06.2019 respectively, along with details of vouchers, expenditure etc., for the relevant period and submitted that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges levelled against him. 6. The material on record also indicates that pursuant to the petitioner submitting his reply to the second show cause notice, the respondent No.2-Director addressed a communication dated 16.08.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner asking for certain clarifications and details. In response thereto, the respondent No.3-District Commissioner issued a reply dated 01.01.2020, intimating the respondent No.2-Director that it was not possible to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 furnish the details and documents sought for by the respondent No.2-Director. Thereafter, the respondent No.2- Director proceeded to pass the impugned order imposing major penalty of demotion and recovery of money of Rs.27,47,725/- together with interest at 8% per annum from the petitioner who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 7. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed their statement of objections and have contested the petition. 8. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in his reply dated 01.01.2020, absolutely no reasons are assigned by the respondent No.3- District Commissioner as to why he was not in a position to verify the veracity of the documents produced and referred to by the petitioner. Since, the respondent No.3 did not issue a suitable reply to the communication at Annexure-M dated 16.08.2019, issued by the respondent No.2-Director, the respondent No.2-Director has proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is clearly an unreasoned and a non-speaking order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 and in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as an opportunity for the petitioner to put forth his contentions before both the District Commissioner and the Director, had not been provided to him before passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned order at Annexure-P is hereby set aside. So also the communication at Annexure-N dated 01.01.2020 issued by the respondent No.3-District Commissioner is also set aside. (iii) Respondent No.2-Director shall appear before the respondent No.3-District Commissioner on 28.10.2025, without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 awaiting further notice from the respondent No.3. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents etc., before the respondent No.3, who shall consider the same and provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter issue a suitable reply to the communication dated 16.08.2019 at Annexure-M, issued by the respondent No.2- Director to District Commissioner. (v) It is further directed that upon the respondent No.2-Director receiving a suitable reply from the respondent No.3-District Commissioner as dated supra, the respondent No.2-Director shall notify the petitioner and provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13421 WP No. 148868 of 2020 (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents etc., before the respondent No.2-Director also, in support of his claim, which shall be considered by the respondent No.2 in accordance with law. (vii) Upon receipt of the reply from the respondent No.3-District Commissioner, the respondent No.2-Director shall proceed further and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the reply from the respondent No.3. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMM/ Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8