- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29337-DB WP No. 32316 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 32316 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) AND: 1. SRI. R. S. RAWAL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O SHAMBUNATHA G. RAWAL, RETIRED SENIOR GEOLOGIST, R/AT No.3 GURUKRUPA, 26TH CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE, BENGLAURU 560073. 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29337-DB WP No. 32316 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/10/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.3282/2022. 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) This writ petition filed by the State is directed against the order dated 19.10.2023, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 3282 of 2022. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent, while serving as Senior Geologist at Koppal, was issued articles of charge dated 15.12.2027, alleging that he failed to prevent or stop illegal mining activities in certain lands of Mevundi village, despite having knowledge thereof. It is further alleged that, other than registering a criminal case against the landowners, the respondent failed to take any further action. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29337-DB WP No. 32316 of 2024 3. The charge memo was replied to by the respondent, denying the allegations contained therein. An enquiry was conducted for misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The enquiry report dated 06.02.2019 concluded that the respondent was guilty of the charges as alleged in the articles of charge. Thereafter, the Upa-Lokayukta, relying upon the enquiry report, recommended the imposition of penalty by reducing the respondent’s pay in the time scale by two lower stages, with cumulative effect. A show-cause notice was replied to by the respondent on 15.03.2019. Subsequently, an order dated 27.02.2020 was passed, reducing the respondent’s pay in the time scale by two lower stages, with cumulative effect. The respondent challenged the said order before the Tribunal, which held that there was no evidence against the respondent and that the enquiry officer had erroneously recorded that the charges were proved. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order and directed the payment of all consequential benefits, including financial benefits, to the respondent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29337-DB WP No. 32316 of 2024 4. Smt. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner-State, submits that the evidence on record establishes that illegal quarry operations were conducted without a license during the period 2011-2014 in various lands of Mevundi village. Although the illegal mining activities were brought to the respondent’s notice, no action was taken, except for the registration of a criminal complaint to halt such activities. The respondent failed to appear before the enquiry authority and has not demonstrated that the charges leveled against him are incorrect. Based on the evidence and the preponderance of probabilities, the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority held that the charges were proved against the respondent. 5. Learned counsel submits that the findings against the respondent are founded upon a fair enquiry and are supported by the evidence on record. It is further submitted that, so long as the enquiry is conducted fairly and reasonably, the court ought not to interfere with the sentence imposed in the exercise of judicial review. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29337-DB WP No. 32316 of 2024 6. Considered the submissions of learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the writ petition papers. 7. The case alleged against the respondent pertains to the failure to prevent or stop illegal mining, despite having been informed of such activities on certain lands in Mevundi village in the year 2014. The defence put forth by the respondent is that the complaint does not attribute any misconduct to him and that the charge is therefore unsustainable. 8. PW.2, the son of the complainant, has not supported the case of the disciplinary authority. PW.1, the Investigation Officer, deposed that on 19.08.2014, he visited various land parcels in Mevundi village. He further stated that stone quarry operations were being carried out illegally on the said lands without obtaining the requisite license. It was also stated that the DGO, serving as Senior Geologist, supported the illegal mining activities and failed to take any action regarding the demolition of the check dam between Heriyahall and Jollahalla. However, in cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he did not enquire into or record statements from the villagers - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29337-DB WP No. 32316 of 2024 to ascertain the duration of the illegal mining activities. PW.1 further conceded that he did not mention the name of the then incumbent DGO or the period of his tenure. Additionally, PW.1 admitted that he had not identified any specific acts or omissions of the current DGO that would amount to dereliction of duty or misconduct. 9. The Tribunal, after considering the complaint and the evidence of PW.1, observed that the case against the respondent was primarily based on the said complaint and evidence. However, the Tribunal noted that PW.1 admitted that the name of the present DGO was not mentioned in connection with the illegal mining activities. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the investigation report does not disclose any acts or omissions on the part of the present DGO that would amount to dereliction of duty or misconduct. 10. The Tribunal further held that the enquiry officer failed to ascertain the duration for which the illegal mining activities were ongoing, as well as whether the respondent was serving as Senior Geologist during that period. The Tribunal observed that there was insufficient evidence against the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29337-DB WP No. 32316 of 2024 respondent. It was further noted that the enquiry officer disregarded the evidence of PW.1 and the admissions made during cross-examination. The Tribunal concluded that the enquiry officer misinterpreted the evidence and erroneously recorded a finding that the charges were proved, despite the absence of material on record implicating the respondent. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 and directed that all consequential financial benefits be paid to the respondent within four months from the date of receipt of the order. 11. We have perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The same are founded on the evidence on record. In the absence of any determination as to the period during which the illegal mining was carried out, and whether the respondent was serving as Senior Geologist during that period, it would be unreasonable to hold the respondent liable for the illegal mining activities. The findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence on record and no error has been shown warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29337-DB WP No. 32316 of 2024 Accordingly, the present petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34