- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB WA No. 661 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2025 (S-DE) BETWEEN: MR. GAJENDRA K K, S/O MR. KRISHNEGOWDA K S, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION ATTENDER, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101. R/AT: THYAGARAJA NAGARA, TARIKERE-577 228. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101. (ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE) 3. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB WA No. 661 of 2025 THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. (ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NITISH K N, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.11935/2022 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the learned single judge in WP.No.11935/2022, whereby the said petition came to be dismissed. 2. The appellant had preferred the said petition impeaching an order dated 10.12.2020 in DE.No.1/2018, whereby the appellant was visited with a penalty of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB WA No. 661 of 2025 withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect in exercise of power under Rule 8(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeals) Rules, 1957. The appellant had also impugned the appellate order dated 15.02.2022, confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 3. The appellant was employed as an Attendant in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere. While in his employment, the appellant had misconducted himself. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were commenced and the following charges were framed: (1) When the D.G.O was performing as group 'D' employee in the court of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mudigere, he was negligent, irresponsible, arrogant, disobedient and whenever any work was assigned to him, he used to shout at his superior officer; without prior sanction of leave or earned leave, he used to be absent unauthorizedly and thereby obstructed the smooth functioning of the court and office and committed mis-conduct of unbecoming of government servant as per Rule 3(1)[i], [ii] and [iii] of K.C.S. [Conduct] Rules 1957. (2) When the D.G.O was working as group 'D' employee, whenever he was ordered to perform the duty of night watchman and day duty, he remained absent unauthorizedly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB WA No. 661 of 2025 from the duty, he was not wearing the prescribed uniform during working hours and even after issue of several notice, he did not improve his behaviour or perform his duties properly and thereby committed the mis-conduct of unbecoming of government servant. 4. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and he examined seven witnesses and also examined other documents. Concededly, the appellant contested the said proceeding and was given full opportunity to do so. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges leveled against the appellant were duly established. 5. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and imposed punishment of withdrawal of 3 increments. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed by an order dated 15.02.2022. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the punishment imposed on the appellant is harsh and disproportionate. The material findings of the Enquiry - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB WA No. 661 of 2025 Officer as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, are not impeached. 7. The learned counsel has confined the challenge to the punition imposed. As noted above, he contends that the punishment is disproportionately excessive. He referred to a Circular dated 14.09.2001 issued by the Government of Karnataka. On the strength of the said circular, submitted that withholding of 3 increments cumulatively is not in accordance with the punishment as set out in the said circular. In particular he pointed out that 'absence of more than 1 month but less than 4 months' was required to be visited with the recommended punishment of withholding 3 annual increments. He also referred to the entry at Serial No.6 regarding the misconduct of 'deficiencies in work procedures'. He contended that if there is any misconduct relating to deficiencies in work, it would invite a punishment of reprimand in the first instance and demotion to the lower levels in pay scale in the second and subsequent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB WA No. 661 of 2025 instances. He submitted that since the appellant had not been charged with misconduct in the past, in terms of the Circular, he was required to be reprimanded and any other punishment would be harsh and disproportionate. 8. We are unable to accept the contention that the punishment imposed on the appellant is harsh or disproportionate. A plain reading of the charges, which stand proved, indicate that the petitioner's misconduct is not confined to mere deficiencies in the work procedure. The charges are significantly grave. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was negligent, irresponsible, arrogant and insolent. He also disobeyed the orders of the superior and raised his voice. He had taken paid leave without approval/intimation resulting in disruption of the work. He had, despite being directed to perform duties, remained absent. Additionally, it was found that he would often not wear his uniform and had neglected to do so despite being so asked. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB WA No. 661 of 2025 9. It is well settled that the Courts will not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless it is found that the punishment is unconscionable and is disproportionately excessive. We are unable to accept that the punishment imposed, in the present case, can be interfered with on the anvil of the aforesaid test. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27