- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26918-DB WP No. 20874 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 20874 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: B SRINIVASA NAYAKA S/O. BASAVARAJA NAYAKA, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS GAZZETTED MANAGER, O/O. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501. R/OF MALLESHWARA, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, VIDYANAGAR, CHITRDURGA-577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH M. V., ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE -560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN A. NO. 788/2025 (ANNEXURE-A), ILLEGAL, PERVERSE AND OPPOSED TO THE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26918-DB WP No. 20874 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 05.06.2025 in Application No.788/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to charge memo dated 16.02.2024 (Annexure-A2). 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ramesh.M.V., for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy for respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is inordinate delay in concluding the enquiry. He submits that the charge memo was issued on 16.02.2024 and the petitioner replied to the charge memo on 07.05.2024 (Annexure-A3). Learned counsel refers to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26918-DB WP No. 20874 of 2025 Circular dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-A4) and submits that the enquiry shall be completed within 9 months as indicated in the Circular. Further, learned counsel would submit that as the enquiry is not completed as indicated in the Circular i.e., within 9 months, the respondent is prohibited from the proceeding further in the enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also places reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5838/2020 dated 13.01.2021 and submits that learned Single Judge of this Court has held that enquiry shall be concluded within a reasonable time. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy would support the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that the Circular would have no binding nature and it is only guidelines. Further, he submits that the Circular dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-A) would not specify the consequences for not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26918-DB WP No. 20874 of 2025 following the guidelines. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and on the other hand, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. The charge memo dated 16.02.2024 is issued to the petitioner alleging certain misconduct. The petitioner after nearly five months submitted his reply on 07.05.2024 (Annexure-A3). Thereafter, the petitioner has rushed to the Tribunal by filing Application on 18.02.2025 questioning the charge memo on the ground that enquiry is not completed within the prescribed time period specified under Circular dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-A4) and also placing reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.5838/2020 dated 13.01.2021 stating that the enquiry against a Government servant shall be concluded within a reasonable time. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26918-DB WP No. 20874 of 2025 7. The Circular dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-A4) indicates the period for concluding the enquiry and the Circular itself indicates that it is only a guideline. Further, it also states that the Officers who violate the Circular would be liable for disciplinary proceedings. On the ground that the enquiry is not concluded within the time specified under the Circular dated 04.10.2010, the petitioner or delinquent officials cannot take advantage. Moreover the said circular would not state any consequences, if enquiry is not completed. 8. The decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5838/2020 dated 13.01.2021 would only state that the enquiry shall be concluded within a reasonable time. In the said case, charge memo was issued on 06.04.2005 whereas, enquiry officer was appointed on 21.04.2009. The enquiry prolonged for more than 9 years. Therefore, in that circumstances learned Single Judge has observed that the enquiry against Government servant shall be concluded within a reasonable time. The said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26918-DB WP No. 20874 of 2025 principle laid down by the learned Single Judge has no application to the facts of the present case. 9. We are sure that the respondent would proceed with the enquiry and conclude the enquiry early, with the co-operation of the petitioner. 10. With the above, writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Failing to pay the cost, the first respondent is directed to deduct the cost from the salary of the petitioner and remit the same to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2025 stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC/CT:bms