- 1 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH 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. 19038 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: M. THIPPESHA S/O LATE B C MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS THE THEN MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND RETIRED AS HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION (DMA) R/AT DOOR NO.90, PANDARI, 5TH A CROSS, 3RD BLOCK 4TH MAIN, TYAGARAJANAGARA BANGALORE-560070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJ S JAIN, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REP. BY REGISTRAR M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2) Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE A.NO-7022/2020 AND RA NO- 37/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE KSAT AT BENGALURU AND UPON PERUSAL BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 IN A.NO.7022/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KSAT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-D AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2022 IN R.A NO.37/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KSAT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID A.NO- 7022/2020 AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 29.08.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: 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) Petitioner, a retired Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Administration Department is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 30.03.2022 in Application No.7022/2020 as well as order dated 04.08.2022 in R.A.No.37/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder the petitioner’s request to quash the order of penalty dated 15.09.2020 imposing withholding of 10% of pension for a - 3 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 period of ten years in exercise of power under Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSRs was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on a complaint of one Sri.Shaikh Shafi Ahmed against one Dr.Abhay Kumar, Health Officer, investigation was taken up by respondent No.2. On investigation, the second respondent submitted report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘1984 Act’). The first respondent – State Government on examination of the said report under Order dated 25.08.2015 entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘1957 Rules’) to the second respondent. The second respondent nominated Additional Registrar (Enquiries-6) as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner as well as one Dr.Abhay Kumar, Health Officer. 3. The Enquiry Officer issued articles of charge dated 05.11.2015 and the sum and substance of the charge is that the petitioner as well as the other - 4 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 Delinquent Government Official (DGO) during the period from July 2006 to October 2006 had purchased 20 Fogging Machines at the rate of 19,500/- each from M/s. Chetan Enterprises, Gulbarga and 20 Fogging Machines at the rate of Rs.22,700/- each from Shree Lakshmi Traders Jevargi by calling tender without mentioning the capacity of Fogging Machines and said 40 machines were of lesser capacity. 4. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply to the articles of charge and thereafter enquiry was conducted. Before the Enquiry Officer, on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, PW1 and PW2 – the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer were examined apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P8(a). Whereas, on behalf of the petitioner two witnesses were examined i.e., petitioner himself examined as DW2 and other DGO himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. - 5 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 5. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30.12.2017 holding that the charge leveled against the DGOs are proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, Upa-Lokayukta forwarded the enquiry report along with his recommendation dated 03.01.2018 recommending to impose penalty of withholding 10% of pension of the petitioner for a period of ten years. The petitioner was issued second show cause notice dated 05.02.2019 enclosing the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. 6. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 02.03.2019 to the second show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority – first respondent thereafter passed impugned order dated 15.09.2020 imposing punishment of withholding 10% of pension for a period of ten years on the petitioner under Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSRs. 7. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application and the Tribunal vide impugned order held that the Enquiry Officer - 6 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 has followed the prescribed procedure and provided opportunity to the petitioner. Further, it recorded that the said Disciplinary Authority, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice has rightly passed the impugned order of penalty. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal as well as the order of penalty, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel Sri.Nagaraj S. Jain for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 9. Learned counsel Sri.Nagaraj S. Jain for petitioner would contend that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. In that, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and failed to appreciate the contention that there is no material on record to prove the charge against - 7 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 the petitioner. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner as well as Co-DGO in fact purchased the Fogging Machines in the year 2006 for a lesser price by following the prescribed procedure. It is submitted that the Fogging Machines were purchased for lesser price than the price paid during the previous year. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that there is no material to prove that the prescribed procedures were not followed. Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to the Short Term Tender Notification dated 18.07.2006 (Annexure-A16) and would submit that the short term tender notification clearly indicates that sealed tenders are invited for supply of 20 numbers of Portable Gas Base/Aerosol Fogging Machines. When it is specifically mentioned that it is portable Fogging Machines, the charge against the petitioner that capacity of Fogging Machines is not mentioned in the tender notification is baseless. Learned counsel would further submit that Section 12(3) report was submitted without physical inspection of the Fogging - 8 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 Machines and the said investigation report itself is baseless. 10. Learned counsel Sri.Nagaraj S. Jain would contend that the Enquiry Officer without considering the material evidence and without examining the same, recorded reasons baselessly, perversely and untenably and held that the charges are proved. Learned counsel would further submit that to impose the penalty of withholding of 10% pension for a period of ten years, there is no finding recorded by either Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct to impose penalty of withholding of pension. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.L.GULATI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1 and decision in the case of D.V.KAPOOR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS2 in support of his submission that unless finding of grave misconduct or grave negligence is recorded, penalty of withholding of pension could be imposed. 1 (2015) 12 SCC 408 2 (1990) 4 SCC 314 - 9 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 11. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty for respondent No.2 would vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner. It is submitted that the charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner and other DGO purchased the Fogging Machines without mentioning the capacity of Fogging Machines in the tender. Attention of this Court is invited to Annexure-A16, Short Term Tender Notification dated 18.07.2006 and they would submit that the tender notification would not indicate the capacity of the Fogging Machines and it would only indicate that Portable Gas Base/Aerosol Fogging Machines which would not be sufficient. Thus, they submit that on the face of it, it could be said that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct. 12. Further, both the learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the enquiry report as well as the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to submit that there is sufficient - 10 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 material to prove the charge. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has not placed any material or documents before the Enquiry Officer in his defense to establish that the tender notification indicated the capacity of the Fogging Machines. Thus, they submit that when the charges are proved against the petitioner of causing loss to the State Exchequer in terms of Rule 214 of KCSRs, the State is empowered to withhold pension or part of pension. Thus, they would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing 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 passed by the Tribunal as well as impugned order of penalty of withholding of 10% of pension for a period of ten years would call for interference?” 14. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons: - 11 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 In the matter of departmental enquiry, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The scope of judicial review would be to examine the process of decision making; to examine whether the delinquent official is provided sufficient opportunity and whether the principles of natural justice are complied; whether there is some evidence to prove the charge; and whether the penalty is proportionate to gravity of alleged misconduct. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS VS. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA3 was examining the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary enquiry and in the said process at paragraphs 22, 23, 25 to 28, it has held as follows: “22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or 3 (2021) 2 SCC 612 - 12 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan [State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1385] and later in State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian [State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 292] and further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under: (B.C. Chaturvedi case [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , SCC pp. 759-60, para 13) “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya - 13 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three- Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103] . 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. - 14 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the facts of the present case shall have to be examined. 16. The charge against the petitioner in terms of articles of charge dated 05.11.2015 reads as follows: - 15 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 “That you, Dr.Abhay Kumar while working as Health Officer (hereinafter referred to as Delinquent Government Servant, DGO No.1 for short) and you Sri.Thippesh while working as Commissioner (referred to as DGO NO.2) in City Corporation Gulbarga during the period from July 2006 to Oct 2006 had purchased 20 fogging machines at the rate of Rs.19,500/- each from M/s. Chetan Enterprises, Gulbarga and 20 fogging machines at the rate of Rs.22,700/- each from Shree Lakshmi Traders Jevargi by calling tender without mentioning the capacity of fogging machines and the said 40 fogging machines were of lesser capacity and thereby you – DGO No.1 and 2 being government servants have failed to maintain absolute integrity besides absolute devotion duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of government servants and committed misconduct as provided under Rule 3(1)(i) to (ii) (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966 and there by committed grave misconduct.” 17. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner and Co-DGO is that while they were in the City Corporation, Gulbarga during the period from July 2006 to October 2006 had purchased 20 Fogging Machines at the rate of Rs.19,500/- each and 20 Fogging Machines at the - 16 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 rate of Rs.22,700/- each by calling tender, without mentioning the capacity of Fogging Machines and the said Fogging Machines were of lesser capacity. 18. The petitioner himself has placed on record the Short Term Tender Notification dated 18.07.2006 (Annexure-A16). It would not indicate the capacity of the Fogging Machines required or to be supplied. The Short Term Tender Notification would only indicate that it is 20 numbers of Portable Gas Base/Aerosol Fogging Machines. 19. On behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer are examined as PW1 and PW2. PW2 has stated that the tender would not indicate the details of the Fogging Machines and the Fogging Machines were of lesser capacity. In the cross-examination, PW2 has stated that the rates were lesser since the capacity of Fogging Machines were less. The petitioner has not placed on record any contrary documents to indicate that the petitioner and the Co-DGO called tender indicating the - 17 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 capacity of the Fogging Machines. On perusal of the entire material placed on record, we are of the view that there is sufficient material to prove the charge against the petitioner. In a departmental proceedings, strict rule of evidence is not applied and the charges are to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government order dated 25.08.2015 entrusting the enquiry under Rule 14A of CCA Rules is not a speaking order. A perusal of the order would indicate the examination of 12(3) report and on examination of the report, the first respondent – Disciplinary Authority has prima-facie came to the conclusion that to find out the truth, enquiry would be necessary, which would be sufficient to entrust the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to the second respondent – Lokayukta. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no finding of grave misconduct or grave negligence to impose penalty of withholding 10% of - 18 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 pension for a period of ten years. A perusal of the recommendation of Upa-Lokayukta dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure-A13) indicates that the Upa-Lokayukta considering the proved misconduct and the gravity of charge, recommended the Government to impose penalty of withholding 10% of pension on the petitioner for a period of ten years. Accepting the said recommendation, the Disciplinary Authority under impugned order imposed the punishment as recommended by the Upa-Lokayukta. The petitioner had an opportunity to submit his reply to the second show cause notice and in reply to the second show cause notice, he has only stated that the Fogging Machines were purchased by following the procedure. When there is allegation of misconduct of causing loss to the Government and when the same is proved, the Government – Disciplinary Authority is justified in imposing the penalty of withholding pension of 10% for a period of ten years. Normally, when the charge is other than the financial loss, then it would be necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to record a finding of grave - 19 - WP No. 19038 of 2022 misconduct or negligence to withhold pension or part of pension. 22. The decisions referred to by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances would not assist the petitioner in any manner. 23. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms