- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO. 106405 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: HANUMANTA S/O. RAJAPPA BHOVI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE R/O: NEW POLICE QUARTERS, TAL. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHINMAY G. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS II FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY WEST ZONE, PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE-574 142. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.23 11:03:05 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARWAR R4FH+RP4, KAJUBAGH, KODIBAG, KARWAR, KARNATAKA 581301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.13314/2024 DATED 23.06.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED BEFORE THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner-police constable is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2025 in application No.13314/2024 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter for short ‘KAT’) in which petitioner’s challenge to the order of penalty dated 29.04.2014 and reply dated 01.07.2024 is rejected solely on the ground of delay. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Chinmay G.Bhat for learned counsel Sri Girish V. Bhat for petitioner and learned AGA Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the entire petition papers. 3. The petitioner who is working as head constable in Police Department was imposed punishment of withholding of increment due for a period of six months without affecting his annual increment against the order dated 29/30.04.2014. Against the said order of penalty, petitioner filed appeal on 14.06.2024 nearly after ten years - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 which was rejected by endorsement dated 01.07.2024 on the ground that appeal is not filed within the time prescribed in KCSRs. Questioning the order of penalty as well as order of Appellate Authority, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in application No.13314/2024. The petitioner also filed IA No.1 for condonation of delay as required under Section 21 of KAT Act, 1985. The Tribunal on considering the application for condonation of delay has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case to condone the delay of nearly nine years in approaching the Tribunal and consequently rejected IA No.1 for condonation of delay as well as application. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner and only on the ground that there is enormous delay of nine and half years, rejected the application. Learned counsel would submit that though the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 penalty order is dated 29.04.2014, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority only after the conclusion of criminal case which was decided on 23.12.2015. Therefore, he submits that Tribunal could not have rejected the application solely on the ground of delay. Further, learned counsel would submit that the order of penalty, though, is a minor punishment, it has affected his promotional prospects. Thus, prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA would support the order passed by the Tribunal and submit that the nature of charges is such that the petitioner ought to have been imposed the punishment of dismissal or removal from service. Learned AGA would submit that charge against the petitioner is very serious in nature. The charges against the petitioner along with other police constable is that they forcibly took 9 mobiles, 10 chargers and also 6 memory cards along with amount of Rs.3,500/- which amounts to extortion. When such being the charge and when charge is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 proved against the petitioner major punishment is warranted. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire petition papers, the only point that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as order of punishment warrants interference. Answer to this question would be in the negative for the following reason:- The charge against the petitioners reads as follows: “zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¹JZï¹ 1412 «oÀ×¯ï ¥ÀgÀ±ÀÄgÁªÀÄ ªÀiÁ®ªÁqÀPÀgÀ, ¹¹ð ±ÀºÀgÀ ¥ÉǰøÀ oÁuÉ ºÁ° ºÀ¼ÉAiÀiÁ¼À ¥ÉǰøÀ oÁuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹¦¹-1537 ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ gÁd¥Àà ¨sÉÆë ¹¹ð ±ÀºÀgÀ ¥ÉǰøÀ oÁuÉ ºÁ° ªÀÄÄAqÀUÉÆÃqÀ ¥ÉǰøÀ oÁt DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ F »AzÉ ¹¹ð ±ÀºÀgÀ ¥ÉǰøÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛ¢ÝÃj. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02-05-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¹¦¹ 1365 ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ £ÁUÉñÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ¹¹ð ±ÀºÀgÀ ¥ÉǰøÀ oÁuÉ gÀªÀjUÉ ( ¸ÉêÁ «ªÉÆÃZÀ£É ºÉÆA¢zÀªÀgÀÄ ) ºÀħâ½î¬ÄAzÀ M§â ªÀåQÛ ©®Äè E®èzÉà ªÉƨÉʯïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹¹ðUÉ ªÀiÁgÁlPÉÌ vÀgÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ DvÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀĺÉÃAzÀæPÀĪÀiÁgÀ JAzÀÄ ¨ÁwäÃzÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀÝ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄ ¹¦¹-1537 ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ gÁd¥Àà ¨sÉÆëgÀªÀjUÉ w½¹zÁÝgÉ. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 ¹¦¹-1537 ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ gÁd¥Àà ¨sÉÆë gÀªÀgÀÄ ¹ºÉZï¹-1412 «oÀ×® ¥ÀgÀ±ÀÄgÁªÀÄ ªÀiÁ®ªÁqÀPÀgÀ gÀªÀjUÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ ¤Ã«§âgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02-05-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ²æà ªÀĺÉÃAzÀæ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ vÀAzÉ ªÀÄįÁèf gÁd¥ÀÅgÉÆûvÀ ¸Á ॥²ºÁuÁ. DºÉÆÃgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀ. ºÁ®ÆgÀ f¯Éè. gÁd¸ÁÜ£À ºÁ° «PÉÆÖÃjAiÀiÁ gÀ¸ÉÛ ºÀħâ½î EªÀgÀÄ gÁwæ 09:30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ¹¹ðAiÀÄ £ÀlgÁd gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ZÉʤ¸ï PÁ£ÀðgÀzÀ°è vÀ®Ä¦zÁUÀ ¤Ã«§âgÀÄ ªÉÆÃmÁgÀÄ ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄ CªÀjUÉ vÁªÀÅ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ 20 ªÉĪÉÆj PÁqÀðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÁdPÀªÀÄ® CAUÀr¬ÄAzÀ »A¥ÀqÉzÀÄ gÁwæ 09:30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ F §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß oÁuÉUÉ PÀgÉzÉÆAiÀÄå¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÉÆÃmÁgÀ ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆræ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¹¹ðAiÀÄ ªÀiÁjPÁA¨Á PÁ¯ÉÃf£À ºÀwÛgÀ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CªÀgÀ°èzÀÝ 9 ªÉƨÉʯï, 10 ZÁdðgÀ, 6 ªÉĪÉÆÃj PÁqÀð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ Q¸ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ gÀÆ. 3500- 00 £ÀÄß §¯ÁvÁÌgÀªÁV vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÉǰøÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ WÀ£ÀvÉUÉ UËgÀªÀPÉÌ PÀÄAzÀÄ EgÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀwð¹ ¹¹ð ±ÀºÀgÀ oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Áß £ÀA 41/2011 PÀ®A 384 L.¦.¹ £ÉÃzÀgÀ®è DgÉÆævÀgÁV ²¹Û£À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ £ËPÀgÀ¤UÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀw𹠤êÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä DzÀå PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è WÉÆÃgÀ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉ ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¹gÀÄ«j.” 7. The above charge of extortion of mobile phones, chargers, memory cards and amount of Rs.3500/- forcibly would amount to grave misconduct. The said misconduct is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 proved in the enquiry. Based on the proved misconduct, petitioner is imposed with penalty of withholding of next annual increment for a period of six months without affecting his annual increment. The punishment imposed is minor punishment for the proved grave misconduct. It warranted major penalty. However, we notice that the petitioner Hanumanta is imposed with only minor penalty. 8. Section 21 of the 1985 Act prescribes limitation to approach the Tribunal. A person aggrieved by any order shall approach the Tribunal within one year. In the instant case, the petitioner approached the Tribunal after nine and half year from the date of passing of order of penalty. The petitioner has not explained the delay of nearly 10 years in approaching the Tribunal, in that there was 10 year delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority. The Tribunal at paragraph 7 has discussed about the application IA No.1 for condonation of delay. A reading of the same would indicate that there was no cogent and acceptable reason to condone the delay of nearly 10 years. The petitioner has - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13724-DB WP No. 106405 of 2025 also not explained the delay in present writ petition. In the absence of proper explanation, the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the IA for condonation of delay and consequently, the main application. 9. We also note that for the proved grave misconduct, it warranted major penalty. However, Disciplinary Authority has chosen to impose minor penalty which needs no interference. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 46