- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 10389 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O.M.H. ANJINAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT: C/O. MAHALAKSHMI, MACHOHALLI, BAP GRAM POST, BANGALORE- 562 130 2. SMT. GEETHA H.S. W/O.LATE. SRIPAD VITHAL, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT. NO.9/1, 18TH CROSS, 23RD MAIN ROAD, SHAMANNA ROAD, 5TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADV.) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BANGALORE- 560 001. REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA WARE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., NO.43, PRIMROSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADV. FOR SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADV. FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT. 21/23.07.2020 PASSED BY R2 IN NO.KAWAN/33/JA- 1E/1319/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AS ILLEGAL AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following prayer: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 21/23.07.2020 passed by respondent No.2 in No.KaVuNi/33/Ja- 1/EV/1319/2020-21 vide Annexure-S as illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to pay the amount recovered with interest to the petitioners in the interest of justice and equity. b) Pass any other order or issue writs under the circumstances of the case that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Petitioner No.1 and the husband of petitioner No.2 were the employees under the respondent-Corporation. It is alleged that under minimum support price scheme, they made double payments to certain farmers, enquiry was initiated against both the employees alleging dereliction of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 duty. It was on account of negligent dealing by the bank, then the State Bank of Mysore, which was entrusted with the responsibility of dispensing the amount to the farmers, the error was done. Targeting petitioner No.1 and the husband of petitioner No.2, domestic enquiry was initiated. In the enquiry, the Corporation has failed to prove the charges levelled against petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2. Respondent No.2 being disagreed with the enquiry report, has passed an order of re-enquiry of Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules 1957') on 08.06.2017. The second enquiry was concluded with a report that the allegations against the officials were not made out. It is contended that by passing the enquiries held, respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 23.07.2020 vide Annexure-S, for deducting the amount allegedly subjected for double payment, from the terminal benefits of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2. It is contended that, both - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 enquiry reports are in favour of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2. The respondent disagreeing with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-S. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections contending that petitioner No.1 and the husband of petitioner No.2 were negligent in discharging their duties and they have made a double payment. On two occasions domestic enquiry was conducted to the formers. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 were not proved. Respondent No.12disagreeing with the enquiry reports, has passed the impugned order. It is also contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no negligence on the part of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2. They have credited the amount in the account of farmers and there is no allegation against petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 regarding the alleged misappropriation. He also submits that on two occasions domestic enquiry was conducted by respondent No.2. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report alleging that the charges levelled against petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 are not proved. He submits that when the reports are in favour of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2, respondent No.2 would not have passed the impugned order, Vide Annexure-S. He also submits that before passing the impugned order, no enquiry was held, and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 impugned order is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and she also submits that respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum. The said complaint came to be dismissed and the appeal is pending and the respondents are making an attempt to settle the dispute between the Bank and the Farmers. She also submits that respondent No.2 provided a sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 8. There is no dispute that petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 were working in respondent No.2-Corporation. They credited the amount in the account of farmers. Respondent No.2 has made allegations against the petitioners that on the account of negligence dealing with the bank, the State Bank of Mysore which was entrusted with the responsibility of disbursing the amount to the farmers, there was an error. Respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice and article of charges to petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2. On two occasions domestic enquiry was conducted against petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2. The Enquiry Officers, after conducting the inquiry, have submitted the reports alleging that respondent No.2 has failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 being disagreed with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, has passed an order of deduction vide Annexure-S. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 9. From the perusal of Rule 11A(2) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1957 (for short 'the Rules 1957'), which provides that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Respondent No.2 considering Rule 11A(2) of the Rules has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-S.. 10. Further, for better understanding the matter in hand, it is necessary to understand Rule 12 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, which reads as follows: "12. Procedure for imposing minor penalties, - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 11A, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iva) of rule 8 shall be made except after, - - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) to (23) of rule 11, in every case in which the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary: (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior and (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include, - (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the Commission, if any; (vi) the finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior; and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 (vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor." 11. Rule 12 of the Rules 1957 emphasize that an inquiry is mandatory if charges are serious, even if a minor penalty is proposed. If the disciplinary authority finds that a Government Servant is guilty , it must hold an enquiry where oral and documentary evidence is prescribed and the employee can cross-examine witnesses and challenge evidence. A charge sheet should not indicate that the disciplinary authority has already pre- judged the charges. 12. Therefore, no order of imposing on a government servant any of the penalties specified in Sub- rule 1 of the Rules, 1957 without holding an enquiry as per Rule 12 of the Rules, 1957. When a specific query was put to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, whether any enquiry was conducted in terms of Rule 12 of Rules 1957? Learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly concedes that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 no enquiry was held as required under Rule 12 of the Rules 1957. Respondent No.2 based on the evidence available on record has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-S. 13. Admittedly, Rule 12 of the Rules 1957 has not been followed and no opportunity was provided to the petitioners to put forth their defence before the respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground, alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 21/23.07.2020 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-S is hereby quashed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43272 WP No. 10389 of 2023 iii. The petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 17.11.2025 and thereafter, respondent No.2 is directed to conclude the enquiry within four weeks from 17.11.2025, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB