- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 34284 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 3RD GATE, 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DIVISION, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT, THE THEN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 571 511. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A AND E), PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 563 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) AND: SRI. SULAIAH, S/O. LATE SRI.CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. RETIRED TAHASILDAR (GRADE II), (RETIRED ON 31.05.2017), OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO. 5354/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the State along with its authorities, challenging the order dated 19.02.2025 in Application No.5354/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, ['Tribunal' for short], allowing the application, quashing the order impugned dated 29.11.2023 issued by respondent No.1/petitioner (Annexure-A25) with further directions in a time-bound manner. 2. The parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief factual matrix are as under: Per Applicant: 4. The applicant was initially appointed as First Division Assistant during the year 1984, by the KPSC and working in the State Accounts Department. Subsequently he placed with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 Revenue Department in the year 1985 and promoted as Sheristedar in the year 1997 and thereafter, as Tashildar Grade-II with the first respondent vide Official Memorandum dated 28.01.2014 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2017. 5. On 30.03.2001, certain lands were acquired by the Karnataka Housing Board, Bengaluru, under a Preliminary Notification, published in the Gazette on 19.04.2001. A Final Notification was issued on 10.05.2002 and published in the Gazette on 17.05.2002. On the allegation that the acquisition of land by the Housing Board was not entered in the concerned records, the applicant and one T.Narayanaswamy both were kept under suspension, which subsequently set aside in application No.279/2011. On 01.03.2014, this Court in WP.No.30622/1999 and other connected cases quashed the land acquisition Notification stated supra. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 6. With respect to alleged misconduct, that is non-entering of necessary entries, on the basis of acquisition vide Notification stated supra, the first respondent-Government issued individual charge memo under Rule 11(6) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA' Rules, 1957' for short), against the applicant and other Delinquent Government Official, vide charge memo dated 22.03.2014. However, none of the documents appended to the charge memo were furnished, in terms of Rules 11(6) of CCA Rules, 1957. The applicant replied to the charge memo, denying the charges and sought time to submit his comprehensive reply, once the documents appended to the charge memo are furnished. Thereafter, the Government issued order vide Annexure-A6, for conducting departmental enquiry against the applicant and 6 others. 7. In the midst of the proposed enquiry, the Government vide order dated 02.05.2016, proposed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 to hold joint enquiry under Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1957, appointing Additional District Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural as the Enquiry Authority and Special Tashildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Yelahanka, as Presenting Officer against the applicant and 4 others, contrary to the settled position of law. 8. The applicant upon attaining age of superannuation on 31.05.2017, was not permitted to withdraw any retirement benefits. He has presented an application before the Tribunal in Application No.4722/2019 for a direction to the respondent to release the retirement benefits. The Tribunal upon considering the submissions of the applicant, passed an interim order directing the second and third respondents to release the provisional pension to which the applicant is entitled in terms of provisions of KCSRs. 9. In the enquiry, the applicants were not at all given any opportunity of being heard, since no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 intimation of the enquiry dates issued to the applicant and another applicant, in violation of the provisions of CCA Rules, 1957. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, without referring to any oral evidence or marking any documents holding that the charges levelled against the applicant and others stands proved. 10. The Government upon receipt of enquiry report issued second show cause notice which was suitably replied by the applicant, stating that the entire proceedings is vitiated for (a) not providing reasonable opportunity, (b) not furnishing any documents, (c) violation of provisions of Rules and (d) against settled position of law that once the individual enquiry commenced after the issuance of charge memo in the midst cannot be converted into a joint enquiry under Rule 13. 11. The Government without considering the reply submitted by the applicant passed an order imposing penalty of withholding 10% of retiremental - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 benefits including DCRG, Commutation value of pension, pension, leave salary for a period of one year, under Rule 214(1)(a) of KCSRs (Annexure-A25). Aggrieved by the order of penalty, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.5354/2024. 12. In response to the application the respondent/petitioner appeared and filed the statement of objections supporting the entire departmental enquiry and submits that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner after considering all the principles of natural justice and in view of the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the applicant and others stands proved, the Government, after issuing second show cause notice, considered the entire materials and passed the order impugned, which is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties found that the enquiry suffered from several major flaws. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 13. Firstly, the entire proceedings of holding joint enquiry in the midst as once the enquiry commenced as individual, is unsustainable in law and against the provisions contained in CCA Rules, 1957 as well as the settled principles of law in the dispute. The Tribunal underscored its reasons with the judgment passed by this Court reported in the case of MAHADEVAIAH M.A. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 In the judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, at paragraph No.7, clearly held that under the scheme of Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, a joint enquiry is possible only when an order is made as contemplated under sub-rule 13. But an individual enquiry commenced against person under Rule 11, cannot be converted in the midst into a joint enquiry by subsequent decision taken long after the enquiry under Rule 11 had commenced by issuance of charge memo and the reply. 1 1992 K.S.L.J. 858 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 14. Secondly, the enquiry report was submitted without recording any oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties. This position of the enquiry even stated to be admitted by the Government advocate, which is also recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph No.7 of its order. The Tribunal has also recorded that during the course of hearing the learned Additional Government Advocate made a submission that, in the event the Tribunal is inclined to quash the order on irregularities in the impugned order of penalty, the matter may be remitted to the concerned authority for fresh consideration. 15. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding on the submission holding that the charge memo was issued in the case on hand on 22.03.2014 along with the show cause notice (Annexure-A4) and by the time the final order is passed in the application, 11 years has already been lapsed and in the interregnum, the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2017 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 and 7 years is lapsed, when the matter reached before the Tribunal for final disposal. The Tribunal in categorical terms opined that the mistake committed by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer in conducting the enquiry, the applicant who is now in his evening days cannot be made to suffer by hanging a sword of Damocles on his head, if the matter is remanded back. The Tribunal in support to its stand relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.MAHADEVAN VS. HOUSING BOARD2 16. The Tribunal holding that the entire enquiry is vitiated for contravention of settled position of law in holding joint enquiry which once commenced as individual enquiry by issuance of individual charge memo and reply thereto and for other flaws found in the enquiry, has come to the reasonable conclusion that the entire enquiry is vitiated and found that the demand of remand is a 2 2005 (6) SCC 636 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 futile exercise and cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned and allowed the application by setting aside the penalty order with other directions. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by the State in this writ petition. 17. Heard Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioners. 18. Sri. V.Shivareddy, though tried to support the order of penalty on the basis of report but, is not in a position to substantiate the major flaw found in the enquiry i.e. converting an individual enquiry which commenced with the issuance of charge memo and reply thereto and converting in the midst to a joint enquiry under Rule 13. Besides the learned Additional Government Advocate made the same submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General before the Tribunal for remand of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 the matter for holding enquiry denova in terms of law. 19. We are not convinced with the submission of learned counsel after this length of time, as the charge memo was once issued in 2014. A protracted enquiry would lead to several hardships including mental agony and sufferings and would result in much hardship than the punishment if any inflicted subsequently. The way in which the enquiry was conducted and handled indicates that the applicant though after attaining the age of superannuation has undergone several hardships and suffered enough. 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.MAHADEVAN stated supra has held that "the protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees." It is trite that an enquiry which is - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51403-DB WP No. 34284 of 2025 commenced individually upon issuance of notice and Articles of charge cannot be converted into joint enquiry under Rule 13 in the midst of enquiry as the same is impermissible under law. 21. In the circumstances, we find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal, which calls for any interference at the hands of this Court. The petition sans merits and is accordingly, dismissed. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending I.A's if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 ct-vn