- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.25932/2024 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.33590/2024 AND WRIT PETITION NO.33705/2024 (S-KSAT) IN WP No. 25932/2024 BETWEEN: SRI DEVENDRA NAIK S S/O SRI SHEKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER GRADE-II MATHIGHATTA GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE BUILDING, GUBBI TALUK R/AT C/O SRI RAVEESH NEAR RENUKA STUDIO 2ND CROSS, VIDHYALAYA GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J PRASHANTH, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M S BUILDING Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, AAG, A/W SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT FOR EDUCATION IN A.NO-1807/2024 ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. IN WP No. 33590/2024 BETWEEN: SRI RENUKA K S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GRADE-II, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, THIGALARA HOSAHALLI, T. BEKUPPE POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117. NOW UNDER AN ORDER OF SUSPENSION, RESIDING AT ANGAJANAHALLI, DODDAMUDIGERE POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562 131. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, 2ND FLOOR, ZILLA PANCHAYATH BHAVAN, B. M. ROAD, RAMANAGARA-562 159. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A AHMED, AAG A/W SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/10/2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1864/2024 AND ETC. IN WP No. 33705/2024 BETWEEN: SRI. Y.S MANJUNATHA S/O LATE Y K SATHYANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER GRADE-II GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL HEBBAL, NORTH RANGE-2 BANGALORE-560024 NOW UNDER AN ORDER OF SUSPENSION RESIDING AT NO.44, 4TH CROSS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 1ST MAIN, MARUTHI LAYOUT DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560024. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, AAG A/W SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/10/2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1866/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, 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 T.M.NADAF - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) W.P.No.33590/2024 is directed against the order dated 18.10.2024 in Application No.1864/2024 rejecting petitioner’s application wherein the petitioner had challenged the Articles of Charge dated 17.05.2023 and Additional Articles of Charge dated 20.11.2023 (Annexures-A11 and A12) and order dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure-A15) appointing Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer. In W.P.No.25932/2024, the petitioner is before this Court, questioning the order dated 25.07.2024 in Application No.1807/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), dismissing the petitioner’s application wherein he had questioned the charge-memo dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure-A8). In W.P.No.33705/2024, petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2024 in Application No.1866/2024 passed by the Tribunal, wherein the petitioner had questioned the Articles of Charge dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure-A8) as well - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 as Additional Articles of Charge dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure-A9). 2. Since the charges against the petitioners are identical and as the prayers sought by the petitioners are identical, all the three writ petitions are heard together and disposed off by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Sathish for petitioners in W.P.Nos.33705/2024 and W.P.No.33590/2024 and Sri.J.Prashanth, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.25932/2024 and Sri.S.A.Ahmed, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents in all the above writ petitions. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.K.Sathish and Sri.J.Prashanth would submit that the charge memo in respect of the petitioners alleges that, though the petitioners were not selected in the select list of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 Government Higher Assistant Teacher Grade-II and Physical Education Teacher Grade-I under the Notification dated 02.04.2012 pertaining to W.P.Nos.33590/2024 and 33705/2024 and notification dated 23.03.2015 in W.P.No.25932/2024, the petitioners got their names included in the select list in violation of Rules and caused loss to the State which would amount to misconduct under Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the allegation against the petitioners relates to an incident prior to them becoming government servants and as such, the CCA Rules will have no application. Learned counsel would also refer to Section 3 of CCA Rules and submits that CCA Rules would be applicable only to the government servants and would have no application to the others. Since the incident on which enquiry/charge memo is issued relates to the period prior to their appointment as government servants, it is submitted that no enquiry could have been initiated under CCA Rules. Further, learned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not responsible for inclusion of their names in the select list and it is for the Selecting Authority to prepare the select list and publish. It is also submitted that it is for the officials to verify the documents and prepare the select list. It is submitted that, no action is initiated against the erring officials, but action is taken against the petitioners who are not responsible either for preparing the select list or for getting the appointment order. The Appointing Authority, DDPI himself had issued Articles of Charge. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the entire enquiry instituted against the petitioners is vitiated. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA would support the order passed by the Tribunal and would submit that CCA Rules would be applicable to the petitioners and as on the date of issuing charge memo, the petitioners were government servants. It is submitted that the enquiry could be initiated against the petitioners only under CCA - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 Rules. Further, learned AGA would submit that Rule 3 of CCA Rules refer to the ‘government servant’ and it would not refer to the ‘incident’. Even though the incident which had taken place prior to the appointment of a government servant, enquiry could be initiated consequent upon them becoming a government servant applying Rule-3 of CCA Rules. 6. Learned AGA would further submit that the petitioners are the beneficiaries of the illegality and to certain extent, the petitioners are also responsible in preparation of additional select list. Learned AGA would also submit that the petitioners were aware of the fact that they had scored lesser marks than the cut off marks. Having the knowledge about cut off marks for each category, petitioners could not have sought appointment. 7. Learned AGA files a memo dated 15.07.2025 enclosing the show-cause notice dated 12.09.2023 issued to one Smt.Geetha S, Joint Director, Bangalore Division and show-cause notice dated 27.09.2023 issued to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 Sri.Made Gowda, Assistant Director of Public Instructions, Bangalore Division. 8. On the direction issued by this Court, Smt.V.Rashmi Mahesh, Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Karnataka has filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2025 indicating the action taken against the officials who were found responsible for the illegal appointments. The following table would indicate the names of officers and the action taken against them. Criminal Proceedings Sl. No. Name & Desigination Misconduct Period & Designation DP/Articles of Charges Crime No. Accused No. 1. K.S. Prasad, FDA, Office of Joint Dir., B’lore Div. Dated:20/11/1999 to 06/9/2022 as SDA, Office of Joint Dir., B’lore Div. 28.04.2023 55/2022 56/2022 2 1 2. M.P.Madegowda Managing Dir. Kar. Text Book Society 09.05.2017 to 29.08.2017 as Joint Dir. and Spl. 0ff. Centralised Admission Cell 27.09.2023 56/2022 17 3. Geetha S. Director of Public Instruction (Rtd. 30.04.2023) 16.03.2018 to 23.11.2020 as Joint Dir. and Spl. off. Centralised Admission Cell 12.09.2023 56/2022 16 4. K. Rathnaiah, Joint Dir., Samagra Sikshana Karnatka (Rtd. 30.05.2022) 30.08.2017 to 11.12.2017 as Joint Dir. and Spl. off. Centralised Admission Cell 56/2022 19 5. G.R. Basavaraja Joint Dir. of Public Instruction 27.12.2017 to 16.03.2018 as Joint Dir. and Spl. off. 56/2022 60 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 (Rtd.31.05.2018) Centralised Admission Cell 6. D.K. Shivakumar Joint Dir. of Public Instruction (Rtd., 30.08.2018) 15.09.2014 to 28.12.2016 as Joint Dir. and Spl. off. Centralised Admission Cell 55/2022 4 7. Rajshekhar B.A., Dir. Public Instruction (Rtd. 30.09.2015) 17.10.2012 to 22.08.2014 as Joint Dir. and Spl. off. Centralised Admission Cell 55/2022 26 8. Rajshekhar B.S., Asst. Dir. of Public Instruction (Rtd. 31.05.2023) 18.05.2018 to 23.11.2020 as Asst. Dir. of Public Instruction 56/2022 62 9. Ramesh A.R., Superintendent (Rtd. 31/10/2021) 2016 to 2019 as Superintendent, Off. of Joint Dir. B’lore North 56/2022 61 10. Narasimharao Pusapalati 08.08.2023 to 01.11.2018 as Outsourced Computer Programmer 55/2022 56/2022 5 15 The above would also indicate the initiation of criminal proceedings apart from departmental enquiry against ten officials. 9. In the above background, the point that would arise for our consideration is as to: “Whether the petitioners have made out a ground to interfere with the order under challenge passed by the Tribunal as well as - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 to interfere with the Articles of Charge issued to the petitioners?” 10. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: The charges against the petitioners reads as follows: In W.P.No.25932/2024: ( . ) !" 1957 11# $ % & ' ( )* +,. &- '., /0 12, (34 56740) &8 39:;<, 7=>, ?@ A$0, $ B<0 /) C 2014-15 4 &8 39:;< &-'. D E-2 (GH '. '. D E -1 87 5I&$J &KL/1/39.;.'. /01/2014-15 N:23-03-2015 5I&$J40 !P Q0RS T!U 1) B<0VD &WIS)A /X* Y%>40 /X*Z( [)\$ 5 87 /( ] Y^), Y^) &8) T$*&8* _> Q 6`, &8) =A D9VD JL7 N /a$ Y8* &WIS)A ( , ) !" 1957 11` )b [<K cd ^& Q(\ 'S(. ' ( )* +,. &- '.. /0 12, &8 39:;<, 7=>, ?@ A$0, $ B<0 < L<$ Y) eJf ($ _a$ Yd Y%>. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 /a$ Y: 2 ' ( )* +,. &- '., /0 12, &8 39:;<, 7=>, ?@ A$0. $ B<0 /) C 2014-15 4 &8 39: ;< &- '. D E -2 -(\D T!U 18* N /g <Gg 6)40 5BP &40S, 87D N h /i 60.66% ` 5 VS QY( ] (/jV), $ B<0 ) 87 /( ] Y^) N: 16-09-2019 ) D$j N:24-09-2019 ) 23-09- 2021 aD Y .d 5I k$ l& &)m)40$ 87 5 +) 7VN)\$, &LP a6n Y .d 5I op( +) k$ l& 8a7 q $ (jA) 2021 (1), (2), (3)!P Q0RS '&8* Z7 . /a$ Y: 3 ' ( )* +,. &- '., /0 12, &8 39:;<, 7=>, ?@ A|| $ B<0 /) C 2014-15 4 &8 39:;< &- '. D E -2 -(\D T!U 18* I /g <Gg 6)40 5BP &40S, h /i 60.66 % ` 5 VS QY( ] (/jV), $ B<0 ) 87 /( ] Y^) N:16-09-2019 ) D$`)\, N:24.09.2019 ) 23.09.2021 aD, [40a$ &N = I40 ZC( &)m)40$ &- C h /i 60.66 % ` 5 VS 5 87 / cP a 6J $ &8 9D 0) 740 ^) 8$`7 . q r &L _sA e$ 36tAu) ^)8$!v( jA !P Q0RS, 5 87 /( ]P Y^N _P <I8! 8* 5w [<K 8* qa$ 5.L e$ k$ - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 53ar 6`, (jA) 2021 (1), (2), (3)!P Q0RS '&8* Z7 . In W.P.No.33590/2024: /a$ Y:1 ' a 8 pS+-Pj &-'., &8 39: ;<, 7! e$&-Vv, YC A॥ a B<0 /) C 2012-13 4 &8 39:;< &-'. D E -2 (GH '. '. D E-1 87 5I&$J &KL: 51/39.;.'. /01/2012-13 N: 02- 04-2012 5I&$J40 !P Q0RS T!U 1) B<0VD &WIS)A /X* Y%>40 /X*Z( [)\$ e&P /X* Y%>40 5 TH /X*Z, &8) T$*&8* _> Q 6`, &8) =A D9VD JL7 0N7. q jV8 8.S.+, ^A 3 QY 1, 2, 3 5P Q0RS q 8!D $( /a$ Y8* Z7 . 2012-13 4 39:;< &-'. 87 58* 8a)\, 87 5I&$J &KL: 51/39.;.'. /01/2012-13 N:02.04.2012 40 !P Q0RS, ' a .8 /) C 87D I /g <Gg 6)40 5BP &40S, h /i % ` 5 VS _ D 7VN)\$ &- 5L 6)40 87 Y^ 8a7 . [- 5N) C pS+-Pj '. -(\D 5 87 /( ] Y^ 8a7 . 2012-13 4 39:;< p.S.+ Pj -(\ '. 87D &WISA a B<0D 3+-z% 8* p.S.+ Pj -(\D [CN0. e$ 8 No ({<7 =)40 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 mL .d /X*Y%>40 e& [CN0. /)a 4A 5 87 e$N C 87D &W) Y>A 'h /i % ` 5 VS _ D 7VN)\$ &- 5 87 e$) 8a7 . 87 5I&$JA $ (L-A, &|} Y ~ 5 ?.[` Y) &• B 5! /})40 5-A 5! 5 87D Yt& (. &) !P &KL: 51/39.;.'. /01/2012-13 N:02-04-2012 87 5I&$J40 Y%&<(. /)a C 87 5I&$J !P 34&( [)\$ &- 5 87D 1 &-( ] … u) /( ] e$`& 5L 6) $ Y7PS, 4 5 $)P 7&*&( QY( ]) 5 87 /( ] Y^ 8a7 . e$ *! m_LP $p& - ‡T\ e$N '. o7D 5-a P [w- 8$ TH oL)40 1Z '. o7D ! 740 7S7 . q )(\ ]Yˆ e$ &8P n& $Y)40)\, 5 87u) [<K =A D98* JL7 WA ^)8$` /a$ Y8* e$ &88* nS /‰ _> QŠ /a$ Y8* Z7 . [) [jA] -2021 3 QY (1)(2)(3) (5) P Q0RS /a$ Y8* Ž!D7 . In W.P.No.33705/2024: ' ‡• G +, &-'., S?‡E-Pj &8 39:;<, )e$&-Vv, D9?)$ A n*W•vYC B<0 < L <$ Y) ($ _a$ Yd Y%>. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 /a$ Y:1 ' ‡• G +, &-'., S?‡E-Pj &8 39:;<, )e$&-Vv, D9?)$ A n*W•vYC B<0 /) C 2012-13 4 &8 39:;< &-'. D E-2 (GH '. '. D E-1 87 5I&$J &KL: /1/39.;.'. /01/2012-13 N:02-04-2012 5I&$J40 !P Q0RS T!U 1) B<0VD &WIS)A /X* Y%>40 /X*Z( [)\$ e&P /X* Y%>40 5 TH /X*Z, &8) T$*&8* _> Q 6`, &8) =A D9VD JL7 N7. q jV8 8.S.+, ^A 3 QY 1,2,3 5P Q0RS q 8!D $( /a$ Y8* Z7 . 2012-13 4 39:;< &-'. 87 58* 8a)\, 87 5I&$J &KL:51/39;' /01/2012-13 N:02.04.2012 40 !P Q0RS, ' ‡• G +, /) C I /g <Gg 6)40 5BP &40S, n*W•vYC B<0D S?‡E Pj _)40 3+-pe‘ 8* -(\! [0N _ D 7VN)\$ &- 5P 6)40 87 Y^ 8a7 . [- 5N) C S?‡E Pj '. -(\D 5 87 /( ] Y^ 8a7 . 2012-13 4 39:;< S?‡E Pj '. 87D &WISA 57 h /i ) 5 n*W•vYC B<0D S?‡E Pj _)40 3+-pe‘ 8* -(\! [CN0)\) /i % $j [CN0. 87D 5L _s 5!P e$)( [)\$ &- 4A 3+-pe‘ Y)`40 87 e$N7 . e$ 8 No ({<7 =)40 mL eJf /X*Y%>40 e& [CN0. /)a 4A 5 87 e$N C 87D &W) Y>A 87D - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 &WISA 57 h /i ) 5 n*W•vYC B<0D S?‡E Pj _)40 3+-pe‘ 8* -(\! [CN0)\) /i % $j [CN0. 87D 5L _s 5!P e$)( [)\$ &- 4A 3+-pe‘ Y)`40 87 e$N7 . 87 5I&$JA $ (L-A, &|} Y ~ 5 ?.[` Y) &• B 5! /})40 5-A 5! 5 87D Yt& (. &) !P &KL:51/39;' /01/2012-13 N::02-04-2012 87 5I&$J40 Y%&<(. /)a C 87 5I&$J !P 34&( S?‡E Pj _)40 3+-pe‘ 8* -(\! [0N)\$ &- 4A 3+-pe‘ Y)`40 87 e$N7 . &- 5 87D 1 &-( ] … u) /( ] e$`& 5L 6) $ Y7PS, 4 5 $)P 7&*&( QY( ]) 5 87 /( ] Y^ 8a7 . e$ *! m_LP $p& - ‡T\ e$N '. o7D 5-a P [w- 8$ TH oL)40 1Z '. o7D ! 740 7S7 . q )(\ ]Yˆ e$ &8P n& $Y)40)\. 5 87u) [<K =A D98* JL7 WA ^)8$` /a$ Y8* e$ &88* nS /‰ _> QŠ /a$ Y8* Z7 . [) [jA] -2021 3 QY (1)(2)(3) (5) P Q0RS /a$ Y8* Ž!D7 . 11. In sum and substance, the charges against the petitioners in W.P.Nos.33705/2024 and 33590/2024 is that in violation of Notification dated 02.04.2012 and in W.P.No.25932/2024 is that in violation of notification dated - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 23.03.2015, issued for the purpose of recruitment of Government High School Assistant Teachers Grade-II and Physical Education Teachers Grade-I, though petitioners were not selected, the names of petitioners were included in the select list by which, they have caused loss to the Government, which amounts to misconduct under Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Further, it is alleged that though the petitioners were aware of their marks which was less than the cut off marks, they managed to get appointment. 12. Issuance of charge memo would not give rise to cause of action for the petitioners to challenge before the Tribunal. Only after conducting the enquiry, if any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, that would give rise to cause of action to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal. In that regard, the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 (Union of India and another V/S Kunisetty Satyanarayana) and also a case reported in - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 (2012) 11 SCC 565 (The Secretary, Min. of Defence and others V/S Prabhash Chandra Mirdha). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. 13. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a legal question i.e., the incident which had occurred was prior to the petitioners becoming government servants and as such, CCA Rules would have no application to the petitioners’ case. Rule 2(d) defines “Government Servant”, which reads as follows: “2(d) “Government Servant” means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka.” Rule 3 of CCA Rules reads as follows: “Application: These Rules apply to all Government Servants except, - [(a) persons employed in any Industrial undertakings of the Government other than the Government Central Press, Bangalore and other Divisional, District Presses, Stationary Depots and Book Depots to whom the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Central Act XX of 1946) are applicable.] (b) persons in casual employment; (c) persons subject to discharge from service on less than one month’s notice; (d) persons for whose appointment and other matters covered by these rules, special provisions are made by or under any law for the time being in force, or in any contract, in regard to the matters covered by such law or such contract; and (e) members of the All India Services. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (1), these rules shall apply to other Government Servants temporarily transferred to a service or post coming within exception (a) or (d) in sub-rule (1) to whom, but for such transfer, these rules would apply. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (1), the Governor may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, exclude, from the operation of all or any of these rules, the holder of any post or the holders of any class of posts to whom the Governor shall declare that the rules cannot suitably be applied and such rules shall thereupon, to the extent of such exclusion, cease to apply: Provided that no such declaration shall be made in respect of a holder of a pensionable post or a whole-time permanent post. (4) If any doubt arises, - (a) as to whether these rules apply to any person; and (b) as to whether any person to whom these rules apply belongs to be a particular - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 service, or as to which service of two or more services such person belongs, the matter shall be referred to the Governor, whose decision thereon shall be final.” A reading of the above rules makes it abundantly clear that CCA Rules would have application to all Government Servants as defined under Rule 2(d) of CCA Rules. As on the date of initiation of enquiry, i.e., issuance of charge memo, the petitioners were Government Servants. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.25932/2024, 33590/2024 and 33705/2024 were appointed as Assistant Teachers Grade-II/Physical Education Teachers Grade-I by order of appointment dated 16.09.2019, 22.12.2014, 21.01.2015 respectively. The application of Rule 3 would not speak of the incident, but it would refer to ‘government servants’. 14. That apart, Rule 20 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short “General Recruitment Rules”) reads as follows: “20. Misconduct:- A candidate found guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 documents or documents which have been tampered with or of making statements which are incorrect or false or of suppressing material information or of using or attempting to use unfair means in an examination conducted for purposes of recruitment or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his recruitment may in addition to rendering himself liable to a criminal prosecution and to disciplinary action, be debarred either permanently or for a specified period – (a) by the Commission or other recruiting or examining authority from admission to any examination or appearing for any interview for selection of candidates; and (b) by the Government from employment under it.” In terms of the above Rule, a candidate found guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated documents or documents which have been tampered with or of making statements which are incorrect or false or of suppressing material information or of using or attempting to use unfair means in an examination conducted for the purposes of - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 recruitment or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his recruitment would be liable for criminal prosecution and also disciplinary action. The above Rule permits the Recruiting Authority/ Examining Authority/Appointing Authority/Government to take action, against a government servant or a candidate who participated in the selection process, to initiate criminal proceedings as well as disciplinary action for the events stated in the above Rule. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench dated 08.12.2022 in W.P.No.23397/2022 to contend that Rule 3 of CCA Rules does not empower either the Appointing Authority or Disciplinary Authority to initiate proceedings against a person who is not a government servant, with an observation that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was not a government servant, but merely a student. The allegations against the petitioner in W.P.No.23397/2022 pertain to misrepresentation of caste as ‘SC’ in the - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 academic year 1993-94 during his schooling days. Whereas, in previous years and subsequent years, the petitioner in W.P.No.23397/2022 had rightly described his caste as ‘Hindu Vokkaliga’. Moreso, the allegations against the petitioner in the said writ petition did not pertain to misrepresentation of caste during the course of his recruitment, but it pertain to the years way before the recruitment process. The said decision has been rendered in the facts of the said case without noticing Rule 20 of General Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the said decision would not assist the petitioners. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that as no action is initiated against the officials who have prepared select list and issued appointment orders, no action or disciplinary proceedings is initiated. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings, no one could claim parity. An enquiry would be initiated on individual misconduct or collective misconduct, as the case may be. Moreover, in the instant case, as noticed above, action is - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28989-DB WP No. 25932 of 2024 C/W WP No. 33590 of 2024 WP No. 33705 of 2024 initiated against the officials also and as such, the said ground is not available for the petitioners. 17. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, all the three writ petitions stand rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK, CT:bms, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1