- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 8511 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: LAKSHMANA V S/O. LATE. V VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SHIVA SHAKTI GARDEN, EAST RANGE, COMMERCIAL STREET, BANGALORE -42. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-52. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND GRANT THE PETITIONER FOLLOWING RELIEFS; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2021 IN APPLICATION NO.4996/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-C), AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B GROUP, 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 S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 22.12.2021 in Application No.4996/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting his Application wherein he had challenged the order of penalty of reversion from First Division Assistant/Food Inspector to Second Division - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 Assistant under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Food Inspector at Taluk Office, Chikkaballapur Taluk, Chikkaballapra, show cause notice along with articles of charge dated 01.01.2013 was issued. As the petitioner denied the charges by submitting reply dated 16.02.2013, the Disciplinary Authority – second respondent appointed Enquiry Officer, who in turn after detailed enquiry, submitted enquiry report dated 11.09.2013 (Annexure-A4) holding that the charges are proved. The petitioner was issued with second show cause notice dated 27.09.2013 (Annexure-A5) along with the enquiry report. Petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice dated 07.10.2013. On considering the enquiry report and reply of the petitioner, second respondent under order dated 25.11.2013 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 8(vi) of CCA Rules (Annexure-A7). Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the competent authority i.e., first respondent – Government. 3. The Government on consideration of the appeal under Anenxure-A9, G.O., dated 24.04.2014, on the ground of disproportionate punishment, interfered with the order of punishment and imposed punishment of reversion from the post of First Division Assistant/Food Inspector to the cadre of Second Division Assistant. Questioning the said order of imposing punishment dated 25.11.2013 as well as the Government Order dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure-A9), the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.Subramanya Bhat for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 5. Learned counsel Sri.M.Subramanya Bhat for petitioner would submit that the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer is contrary to Rule 11 of CCA Rules. Further, learned counsel would submit that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority during the course of enquiry. Learned counsel would further submit that Ex.P10 is the report of the Deputy Commissioner. But, the author of the said report i.e., Deputy Commissioner is not examined. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine the author of the report i.e., Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel would further invite attention of this Court to the report of the Deputy Commissioner and submits that nowhere in the report it is stated that petitioner is responsible for the alleged incident of discrepancy in the ration cards and issuance of ration cards to certain of the card holders. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 contentions raised by the petitioner and only on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has based his findings on the oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to dismiss the application. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Appellate Authority also failed to take note of the contentions raised by the petitioner and failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that due procedure is followed by the Enquiry Officer by providing opportunity to the petitioner at every stage of the enquiry. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that the petitioner cross-examined the two witnesses examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and in the cross-examination the petitioner has never disputed the contents of the report at Ex.P10. In the absence of not disputing the report at Ex.P10, it is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 open for the petitioner at this stage to raise the dispute about the report as well as its contents. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only question that falls for our consideration is as to, Whether interference of this Court is warranted to the order of the Appellate Authority dated 24.04.2013 (Annexure-A9) as well the order passed by the Tribunal? 9. Answer to the above question would be in the Negative for the following reasons: This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Tribunal or by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. This Court in exercise of its power under judicial review would examine - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 decision making process and examine as to whether proper opportunity is provided to the delinquent official in the course of enquiry. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been provided with opportunity, but the main grievance of the petitioner is that the author of the report at Ex.P10 i.e., Deputy Commissioner is not examined and the petitioner is not provided to cross-examine the author of the Ex.P10. 10. Ex.P10 is marked through the witness examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has not disputed the report of the Deputy Commissioner which is at Ex.P10. The petitioner has cross-examined the two witnesses examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. We have gone through the cross-examination of those witnesses, but the petitioner has never questioned the report or has sought for examination of the author of the report at Ex.P10. In the absence of not disputing the report at Ex.P10 and not seeking to summon another of Ex.P10, it is not open for the petitioner at this stage to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 dispute or to contend that the author of Ex.P10 is not examined. 11. Learned counsel Sri.M.Subramanya Bhat also contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and no evidence is available on record to come to the conclusion that charges are proved against the petitioner. This Court would not go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence in a departmental proceedings. If there is some evidence on record, it would be sufficient for the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that charges are proved. In a departmental proceedings, strict rule of evidence is not applicable and charges are to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 12. The charges against the petitioner are very serious. It is the allegation against the petitioner that being a responsible officer, the petitioner created ration cards of non-existing families with the photos of the family members on imagination with non-existing particulars with - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30128-DB WP No. 8511 of 2021 insufficient address with the connivance of the license holder of the fair-price shop. The evidence and report at Ex.P10 would sufficiently prove the charge against the petitioner. 13. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50