- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 24408 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SHAKEEL AHMED. C. W., S/O ABDUL WAHID, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, No.5 AND 6, JALABHAVAN 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDA, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024 DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURAGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA 577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/02/2024 IN APPLICATION No.4346/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS 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 S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2024 in Application No.4346/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') rejecting his application wherein he had challenged articles of charge dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-A8). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024 2. Heard Sri. Zameer Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned AGA for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was before the Tribunal questioning the articles of charge dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-A8) wherein in sum and substance the allegation is that park in Survey No.76 is encroached and the encroachment was within the knowledge of the petitioner, who has not taken any action to remove the encroachment. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to inspection report at Annexure-A6 dated 13.11.2018 and contends that there is no encroachment. 4. Learned counsel would submit that the charge memo is issued only to harass the petitioner and by virtue of charge memo, the petitioner is denied the promotion. Learned counsel would submit that there is no substance in the articles of charge which requires interference. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal without going into any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, dismissed the application only on the ground that charge memo cannot be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024 interfered at the initial stage. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand supports the order passed by the Tribunal and would submit that the subject matter of articles of charge requires enquiry and at this stage, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the merit or otherwise of the charge. Thus, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking note of the charge against the petitioner, has rightly come to the conclusion that it is not a case for interference with the articles of charge. When the nature of charge is looked into i.e., allegation of encroachment of park area, the same requires enquiry by placing material on record. The petitioner would get an opportunity to defend himself and place material on record to establish that the petitioner is innocent and he has no knowledge of the encroachment as alleged in the charge memo. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again in catena of decisions held that normally, Court should not interfere with the charge memo at the initial stage. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39