- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 11889 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. MURTUZASAB S/O. NASIRUDDINSAB PINJAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, EX-MARKET SUPERVISOR, APMC, YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE-560 022 AND R/AT NO.896, GROUND FLOOR 2ND A MAIN, 2ND B CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, BSK III STAGE, KALIDASNAGAR, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGAORE-560 085 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025 6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT, NO.16, 2ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD P.B NO. 5309 BANGALORE 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.No-1011/2024 DATED 25.10.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRAY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT AND RELEASE 6TH STAGNATION INCREMENTS FROM JANUARY 2012 AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGLAURU IN A.No-1011/2024 DATED 25.10.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner is unsuccessful in his application in No.1011/2024 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The petitioner in filing this application has sought for quashing of the second respondent's Endorsement dated 06.12.2023, and the second respondent by this Endorsement has confirmed that the petitioner will have to suffer the penalty that has reached finality with the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.37411/2016 and connected matters. 2. The petitioner's grievance with this order stems from the liberty granted by the Co-ordinate Bench in the afore decision for proceedings under Section 128 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025 Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 [for short, 'the APMC Act']. The Tribunal, after detailing the earlier proceedings and the outcome in the writ petition by the Co-ordinate Bench, has opined thus: "7. Therefore, looking to the order of the Hon'ble High Court so far as the first part of the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of demotion to the lower pay scale or withholding of increment or etc., it was not at all interfered with by the Hon'ble High Court. But, only so far as the recovery of the amount ordered by the disciplinary authority against the applicant herein and others that was quashed. However, liberty was given to the Disciplinary Authority or the Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee to resort to appropriate proceedings under Section 128 of the APMC Act. The said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was not at all interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court because the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed S.L.P.No.15521/2017. Therefore, so far as first part of the penalty of demotion of the applicant to lower pay scale - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025 or withholding of the increments etc., it attains finality. Therefore, applicant cannot challenge the same again before this Tribunal. Therefore, we don't find any illegality or legal infirmity in the order under Annexure-A14 dated 06.12.2023. Applicant has failed to make out a case." 3. Mr. P. N. Nanja Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's grievance as against imposition of any penalty is premised on the outcome of the proceedings under Section 128 of the APMC Act as enabled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.37411/2016 and connected matters, and the learned counsel emphasises that in the inquiry that has ensued after the Co-ordinate Bench’s order, a report is filed stating that the petitioner is not responsible for the financial loss. 4. Mr. Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of the afore submission with the learned Additional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025 Government Advocate canvassing that what was left open by the Co-ordinate Bench in deciding the aforesaid writ petition was the recovery of the losses as contemplated under Section 128 of the APMC Act but otherwise, imposing the penalty is confirmed. This Court, on perusal of the material including the Co-ordinate Bench's order, finds the reasons offered by the Tribunal very formidable, and therefore, opines that there is no reason for interference and the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RB