- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 16122 OF 2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: P S NAYANEGALI S/O SRI SANGAMESH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS EX. SECOND DIVISION STORES KEEPER, R/AT IYSHWARYA XEROX CENTRE OPPOSITE INDIAN BOLTS FACTORY NEAR I.O BANK, KANAKAPURA ROAD YELACHANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH S. K ., ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO APPLICATION NO.4246/2003 VIDE ANNX-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.06.2016 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4246/2003 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 NO.4246/2003 FILED BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER. 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) The petitioner, a removed Second Division Stores Keeper is before this Court questioning the order dated 01.06.2016 in Application No.4246/2003 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to order of removal dated 28.02.2002 (Annexure-A7) is rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Second Division Stores Keeper and a charge memo dated 20.03.1997 (Annexure-A1) was issued under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 ‘CCA Rules’) alleging that, while the petitioner was in-charge of Stores, in the absence of First Division Stores Keeper, failed to maintain Stores accounts properly and when regular First Division Stores Keeper was posted, failed to handover the charge of the Stores immediately thereafter. It is alleged that the petitioner handed over charge of the Stores to one Sri.J.B.Jakathi, First Division Stores Keeper on 15.02.1994 to 28.04.1994 in two spells. The Enquiry Officer in his report held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. 3. The Disciplinary Authority issued second show- cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner replied to the second show-cause notice. Thereafter, under impugned order dated 28.02.2002 (Annexure-A7), the petitioner was imposed with punishment of removal under Rule 8(vii) of CCA Rules. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application and under impugned order dated 01.06.2016, the petitioner’s application is rejected. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 Against which, the petitioner is before this Court in the present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Dinesh.S.K., for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner was a joint enquiry. In that, he submits that Rule 13 of CCA Rules is not complied with. It is submitted that the enquiry ought to have been initiated by the highest authority and there is no order passed under Rule 13 of CCA Rules. Learned counsel further contended that the charge against the petitioner is vague and not specific. In that, he submits that there is no specific allegation as to whether there is any shortage in the Stores or misappropriation of Stores article. In the absence of such allegations, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 erroneous. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was not supplied with the opinion of the Karnataka Public Service Commission which according to the petitioner is mandatory. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice is not considered and the order of removal is not a speaking order. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that the Government which is the highest authority has initiated the departmental proceedings. As such, there is no basis in the contention of the petitioner that Rule 13 of CCA Rules is not complied with. Learned Additional Government Advocate would also submit that the charge memo is clear and specific. It is contended that the charge against the petitioner is, the petitioner has not handed over charge in time to the person who is posted as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 First Division Stores Keeper and that the petitioner has not maintained proper accounts. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner would not be entitled for opinion submitted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission and non-supply would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Advocate would also submit that the impugned order considers the reply submitted by the petitioner, in pursuance to second show-cause notice and further it is submitted that while accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, no elaborate reason be needed. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, Whether the interference of this Court is required to the impugned order passed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 Tribunal as well as in the impugned order of removal? 8. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons: The petitioner was working as Second Division Stores Keeper during the relevant period. He was put in-charge of the post of First Division Stores Keeper on 01.05.1993. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner is that while he was working as Second Division Stores Keeper, the petitioner has failed to maintain Stores Accounts properly and that he has failed to handover the charge of the Stores in time to regular First Division Stores Keeper who was posted on 07.07.1993. The charge against the petitioner is held to be proved based on the material placed on record before the Enquiry Officer. 9. The Enquiry Officer based on Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to maintain the accounts properly. Further, the Enquiry Officer based on the material has given a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 categorical finding that the petitioner handed over the charge to one Sri.J.B.Jakathi, First Division Stores Keeper on 15.02.1994 and 28.04.1994, which is opposed to the Stores Manual. It is relevant to note here that the charge in the departmental proceedings shall be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and strict rules of evidence is not required. A perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion based on the material on record which is sufficient to prove the charge. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that charges are vague cannot be countenanced. Upon perusal of the charge, it is clear and specific. The charge against the petitioner is that he has failed to maintain Stores account properly and that he has not handed over the charge to subsequently posted First Division Stores Keeper in time. It cannot be said that the charges are un-understandable or ambiguous. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that opinion of the Karnataka Public Service Commission is not furnished to the petitioner is untenable, since it is a procedural aspect to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. When the petitioner is issued second show-cause notice along with the enquiry report, the requirement of following the principles of natural justice would suffice. One should establish the prejudice that is caused by non-furnishing of the opinion submitted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission, which the petitioner has failed. Thus, we do not find any merit in the said contention. 12. Upon a perusal of the impugned order of the Disciplinary authority, it is seen that the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer. Further, it also indicates that the Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment has considered the reply submitted by the petitioner. If the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and it - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29672-DB WP No. 16122 of 2017 decides to accept the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority need not record elaborate reasoning. When the order of punishment indicates the consideration of petitioner’s reply, the petitioner cannot contend that the reply submitted by him is not considered. 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.: 35