- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 932 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ISMAIL SAHEB SHIRAHATTI, S/O RAJESAHEB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WAITING FOR POSTING, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT PLOT No.74, R. N. SHETTY ROAD, SAVANUR LAYOUT, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI 580025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/01/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.4137/2024 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE- A) ETC. 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale) Officer, is before this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 09.01.2025 in Application No.4137/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal') whereby, petitioner's challenge to the order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-A8) ordering further enquiry under the provisions of Rule 11A(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short 'KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957'], is rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 2. Brief facts which are necessary are that, the petitioner was issued with Articles of Charge dated 06.12.2016 (Annexure-A3) under Rule 11 of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, alleging payment of compensation to ineligible farmers and also paying compensation in excess of award. The Enquiry Officer, appointed to enquire into the charges, submitted report on 02.11.2018 holding that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. In the said enquiry, it is stated that witnesses- PWs.1 to 9 were examined. The Disciplinary Authority-State Government, on receipt of enquiry report, in exercise of its power under Rule 11A(1) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, ordered for re-enquiry by order dated 17.08.2021 (Annexure-A5). Questioning the Government Order dated 17.08.2021, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.10951/2021. The Tribunal by its order dated 28.03.2022, set aside the order of re-enquiry dated 17.08.2021 and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to re- consider in the light of the observations made in the course of Tribunal's order. On re-consideration of the matter, the State Government by order dated 23.01.2023 ordered de novo enquiry i.e. further enquiry in terms of Rule 11A(1) of KCS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 (CCA) Rules, 1957. The Enquiry Officer, on 31.03.2024, submitted report holding that the charges are not proved. It is stated that no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority since the Presenting Officer remained absent. On receipt of the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority-State Government under order dated 14.08.2024 rejecting the said enquiry report ordered for further enquiry as no witnesses were examined. The said order dated 14.08.2024 was the subject matter of Application No.4137/2024 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal under the impugned order rejected the petitioner's application. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as the Government Order dated 14.08.2024 ordering further enquiry, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. This Court, by interim order dated 21.01.2025, stayed the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 09.01.2025 as well as the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-A8). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, along with the memo dated 28.07.2025 has made available the enquiry report dated 20.09.2024. 5. Heard Sri K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent and perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Sri K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the contentions urged by the petitioner and erroneously rejected the petitioner's application questioning the order of further enquiry. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings diligently and that he cannot be blamed for the delay in enquiry. Nothing can be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the Enquiry Officer or the Presenting Officer. Learned counsel would further submit that the first enquiry report was submitted on 02.11.2018 wherein, the petitioner was exonerated and in the said enquiry, PWs.1 to 9 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 were examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. However, he submits that for non-examination of the witnesses on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority in the further enquiry, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and it is only because the Presenting Officer remained absent before the Enquiry Officer. If the Disciplinary Authority fails to properly prosecute the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. His juniors were promoted during the pendency of the enquiry and that the petitioner's case for promotion is not being considered for years together. Learned counsel would submit that the authorities cannot order for further enquiry until they get the desired or favorable report. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.4730/2022, dated 08.04.2024. Thus, prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that the charge against the petitioner is very serious and the action of the petitioner has resulted in financial loss to the State Exchequer. Learned Additional - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 Advocate General would submit that the lapse in duty of the Presenting Officer should not result in loss to the State Exchequer and a charge of serious nature should not go without investigation. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the State in exercise of its power under Rule 11A(1) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, rightly ordered for further enquiry as witnesses were not examined before the Enquiry Officer for whatever reason. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the charge memo was issued in the year 2016 and the first enquiry report was submitted in the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two applications before the Tribunal and two writ petitions before this Court. In that process, there is delay in the finality of the enquiry. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that it is the petitioner's own creation of delay and Government is not responsible. Further, Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in view of the interim order passed by this Court in the present writ petition, the respondents were not in a position to take any action on the enquiry report submitted on 20.09.2024. Thus, Learned Additional Advocate General pray for dismissal of the writ petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that falls for consideration of this Court is, "Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as impugned Order dated 14.08.2024 ordering further enquiry requires interference?" The answer would be in the 'Negative' for the following reasons; (i) The charge memo against the petitioner is dated 06.12.2016. There are totally 7 charges against the petitioner and in sum and substance, the charge is that the petitioner is responsible for payment of compensation for land acquisition to ineligible farmers and also that the petitioner is responsible for payment of compensation in excess of award amount to the tune of Rs.2,43,95,591/-. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report on 02.11.2018 holding that the charges are not proved. In the said enquiry, admittedly, PWs.1 to 9 were examined. The Disciplinary Authority, on examination of the Enquiry Report was of the view that the matter requires fresh enquiry and accordingly by Government Order dated 17.08.2021 ordered for fresh enquiry. The said order dated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 17.08.2021 was the subject matter of the Application Nos.10951/2021, which was allowed quashing the order dated 17.08.2021 with liberty to the State Government to reconsider the matter afresh. Thereafter, on reconsideration, the State Government passed an order dated 23.01.2023 for further enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted report on 31.03.2024 holding that the facts are not proved since no witnesses were examined on behalf of Disciplinary Authority in view of the fact that the presenting officer failed to participate in the entire enquiry proceedings. On receipt of the said report, the State Government, not accepting the report, ordered for fresh enquiry as no witnesses were examined, which was challenged in Application No.4137/2024 and the Tribunal under the impugned order dismissed the application. 9. The above sequence of events would clearly indicate that though the first enquiry report was submitted on 02.11.2018 and fresh enquiry was ordered on 17.08.2021, the petitioner is before the Tribunal by filing two applications and the present writ petition, it cannot be said that the State Government is entirely responsible for the delay in conducting the enquiry. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 The petitioner is also responsible for the delay in concluding the enquiry. The Tribunal under the impugned order has rightly concluded that it is not a case for quashing the order of further enquiry. 10. Rule 11A(1) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 empowers the State Government to order for further enquiry for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, and thereafter, it is for the Enquiry Authority to proceed to hold further enquiry according to the provisions of the aforesaid Rules. In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer is required to proceed with the further enquiry in terms of Rule 11 which lays down the procedure for enquiry. Admittedly, at the instance of the petitioner, interim order was passed in the present writ petition on 21.01.2025 staying the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as Government Order dated 14.08.2024 ordering further enquiry. In view of the fact that further enquiry order dated 14.08.2024 was stayed, it was brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer having noted the said interim order ought not to have proceeded to conclude the enquiry and hold that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. When the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 interim order passed by this Court is brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer could not proceed further and submit report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges are not proved. From the action of the Enquiry Officer, it appears that he was predetermined to exonerate the petitioner of the charges. The Enquiry Officer has shown undue haste for the reason best known to him, disobeying the interim order of this Court passed in this writ petition. 11. In light of the above and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we set aside the enquiry report dated 20.09.2024. The Enquiry Officer shall proceed with further enquiry in terms of the Government Order dated 14.08.2024. The Disciplinary Authority-State Government shall make all arrangement to represent before the Enquiry Officer by appointing a Presenting Officer. 12. On behalf of the respondent-State, an affidavit dated 12.09.2025 is filed by Dr. K.G. Jagadeesha, Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bengaluru, enclosing the notice under Rule 11 of KCS - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37457-DB WP No. 932 of 2025 (CCA) Rules, 1957, dated 11.09.2025 against the earlier Presenting Officer one Sri H.B. Chinnappa , for his dereliction of duty in not representing before the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry against the petitioner. The same is placed on record. 13. With the above observations, the writ petition stands rejected. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order or from the date of uploading of this order in the official website of this Court, whichever is earlier, subject to the co-operation by the petitioner. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3