- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 4187 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. S.MANJULA W/O LATE MASTHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN MCA KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY SHANKARAGHATA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577451 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADV.) AND: 1. KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY THE REGISTRAR SHANKARAGHATTA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577451 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 2. KUVEMPU UNIVERISTY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR SHANKARAGHATTA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577451 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY T P.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.13.1.2021 PASSED BYTHE R-1 AUTHORITY ANEXURE-A, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.13.1.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 AUTHORITY HEREIN AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR FIXATION OF HER PAY AND OTHER ALLOWANCES ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY LIST OF TO GRAN ANY OTHER INTERIM ORDER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the like nature quashing the impugned order dtd.13.01.2021 made in No.KuVi:MaaSaNi-2/4385/2020-21 passed by the 1st respondent authority (Annexure-A), in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Grant such other reliefs as are just even including the costs of this petition in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner joined the service in the respondent- University as a Peon in 1995 and was promoted to the post of Attender in 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant in 1999 and subsequently, promoted as First Division Clerk in 2014 and later, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 promoted as Senior Assistant in 2020. On 03.03.2007, while the petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant, the then Director of Distance Education, Kuvempu University, issued a notice to the petitioner alleging in respect of payment of fees by two students there is no reference or record for having deposited the payment through bank challan and the receipt. It is further alleged that the challan submitted was not issued by the bank and the same is fake. The petitioner has submitted a reply on 12.03.2007 vide Annexure-C. The respondent-University issued a charge memo on 15.05.2008 vide Annexure-D The petitioner submitted her explanation to the charge memo vide reply letter dated 04.06.2008. After submitting the reply to the charge memo, the respondents did not hold any enquiry. Meanwhile, the respondents went on promoting the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent- University has reopened an enquiry, which was lapsed/dropped over 12 years. The respondent-University is not justified in issuing a notice dated 13.01.2021 vide - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 Annexure-A for reopening of an enquiry against the petitioner, after lapse of more than a decade. The impugned notice issued by the respondent-University is arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections admitting that the petitioner has joined the service of the respondent as Peon in 1995 and she was promoted from Peon to the post of Senior Assistant. The petitioner while working as Junior Assistant, has not reflected regarding the payment received from two students and she has misappropriated the same. Thus, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.03.2007 and the petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 12.03.2007 vide Annexure-C. It is contended that the respondent- University vide order 13.01.2021 appointed the Retired District Judge as Enquiry Officer and also the Presiding Officer to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and directed the Committee to submit a report within a period of three months under the provisions of Mysore - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 University CCA and Appeal Statutes, 1983. The petitioner has issued a charge sheet and she has submitted a reply to the said charge sheet. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent-University. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent issued a show cause notice on 03.03.2007 alleging that the petitioner has not reflected the fees received by her from two students and she has produced the fake charge. He submits that the petitioner has replied to the show cause notice on 12.03.2007 vide Annexure-C. The article of charges was issued on 15.05.2008, after the lapse of 15 months from the reply submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent-University has not conducted any enquiry for more than 12 years. Meanwhile, the respondents promoted the petitioner from Peon to the post of Attender, Junior Assistant, First Division Clerk and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 as a Senior Assistant in 2020. After lapse of more than 12 years, they have reopened the enquiry and they are intending to proceed against the petitioner. The action of the respondent in proceeding with the enquiry is arbitrary and erroneous and there is an inordinate delay in conducting an enquiry. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount and a show-cause notice was issued and also the Retired District Judge was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and article of charges was issued to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer did not conduct an enquiry for more than 12 years. The respondent has ordered for reopening of an enquiry. The action of the respondent-University is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismissed the writ petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the respondent-University and she was promoted to the post of Attender in 1996, as Junior Assistant in 1999, as First Division Assistant in 2014 and as a Senior Assistant in 2020. The respondents issued a show cause notice on 03.03.2007 alleging that the petitioner has committed misappropriation. The respondents replied to the show cause notice on 12.03.2007 vide Annexure-C. Thereafter, the respondent has appointed a Retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, Article of Charges was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2008. Thereafter, the respondent has submitted an explanation to the Article of Charges on 04.06.2008. From the date of submitting an explanation to the article of charges, the Enquiry Officer has not conducted any enquiry till 13.01.2021. Meanwhile, the respondent promoted the petitioner in 1996, 1999, 2014 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 and 2020. After the lapse of more than 12 ½ years, the respondents, reopened the enquiry and are proceeding with the enquiry. The proceedings initiated after the lapse of many years. It is an arbitrary action and abuse of the process of law and without any bonafide reason. The respondent University has not explained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. The period of 12 years is an excessive delay, which is unexplained. The respondent University failed to consider that proceedings cannot be initiated after an unreasonable and unexplained delay over such a long period, evidence may be lost documents misplaced and it becomes nearly impossible for witnesses to recall specific facts. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. MAHADEVAN VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and also in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS NAMAN SINGH SEKHAWAT reported in (2008) 4 SCC 1, where in similar circumstances, has set aside the departmental - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43792 WP No. 4187 of 2021 proceedings initiated after lapse of many years. Thus, considering the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of P.V. MAHADEVAN and NAMAN SINGH SEKHAWAT (SUPRA), the impugned order vide Annexure-A is arbitrary and results in abuse of process of law. In view of the above discussion, Annexure-A is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 13.01.2021 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside. iii. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB