- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH 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. 32653 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. B.S. ANGADI, S/O LATE SHIVAYOGEPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASST JAILOR, CENTRAL JAIL, VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101. RESIDING AT: KANAKA NILAYA, RAMAKKA LAYOUT, M.V.EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON AND REFORM SERVICES, NO.4, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No. 4472/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-C IN RESPECT TO ORDER OF REMAND IS CONCERN, AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR. 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is by the applicant in Application No.4472/2023, calling in question the order dated 31.05.2024, so far as remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 3. A brief factual matrix leading to filing of this present petition are as under: 4. A disciplinary enquiry came to be initiated against the applicant and others, in respect of escape of an under trial prisoner by jumping from the main wall of the Jail. The misconduct attributed against the applicant is to the effect, that the applicant after locking up, failed to lodge the key at the main door Key Box, which paved way to an under trial prisoner to escape from the Jail. 5. The Enquiry Officer after holding disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and others, held that charge levelled against the applicant and others have been proved. 6. The Government upon receipt of enquiry report issued second show cause notice to the applicant. In response to the second show cause notice, the applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations of misconduct against him. He has further submitted that the escaped prisoner has been intercepted and arrested within 19 hours - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 by the applicant and other staff. On these, he has submitted to drop the proceedings and exonerate him of charge. 7. Not satisfied with the reply, respondent No.2 passed an order of punishment of withholding one annual increment for two years with cumulative effect. 8. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, with a request to review the punishment imposed. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 29.03.2023, confirming the order passed by respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the order of punishment as well as the order of confirmation in appeal, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.4472/2023. 9. The State Government after accepting the notice filed statement of objections, supporting the enquiry report, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 10. Before the Tribunal, the main argument advanced by the applicant was that, he was not given reasonable opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate his defence. The Tribunal after perusing the entire material before it was of the opinion that the applicant was not given a fair chance to enter into the witness box and lead oral evidence, resulting in non-compliance of Rule 11(18) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1957 ['CCA Rules, 1957' for short]. 11. The Tribunal referring to Rule 11(18) of CCA Rules, 1957 has held that the Enquiry Officer has not discharged his duty casted upon him under the Rule supra as he has not prepared questionnaires on the evidence of the witnesses led by the Disciplinary Authority and recorded statement of the applicant on that and to that extent, the applicant has made out a case. 12. Having reasoned the same, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that there is a procedural flaw in the enquiry and allowed the application, setting aside the orders - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 impugned and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh enquiry to the extent of recording statement of Delinquent Government Official No.3 i.e., the applicant in terms of Rule 11(18) of CCA Rules, 1957 and to proceed with the enquiry and submit a fresh report in a Time Bound manner, i.e., within four months. The Tribunal has further observed that the applicant at present is not entitled for any financial benefits, since the enquiry is still going on and after submission of fresh enquiry, the disciplinary authority has to pass final order and thereafter, the applicant may make an application for his financial benefits provided if he succeeds in the further enquiry. 13. The order comes to be passed on 31.05.2024. However, till the date of filing of the petition i.e, on 25.10.2025, there is no development in the enquiry as per the directions issued by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the inaction, the applicant is before this Court, calling in question the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent of remanding the matter, as there is no enquiry proceeded further in compliance of the order, as the delay caused in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 proceeding with the enquiry proceedings resulted in hardship on the applicant, causing financial loss. 14. Heard Sri.Prasanna.D.P, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondents. 15. On 04.12.2025, when the matter was heard on preliminary hearing, Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate was called upon to secure instructions on the status of enquiry that is restored by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2024, by the next date of hearing and ordered to list the matter today. 16. Today Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that there is no development in the enquiry since the order passed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the official from the department is present in the Court has instructed that there is no further development in the enquiry, subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 17. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, a specific direction has been issued by the Tribunal to hold the enquiry from the stage of recording of statement of the applicant. However, despite two years coming closure, there is no development in the enquiry. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant- petitioner submits that, since there is a failure to commence the enquiry, despite closing to two years is hit by delay and gets vitiated. The financial benefits of the applicant has been withheld due to the enquiry and causing financial hardship on the applicant. Since the Time Bound order has not been complied, the enquiry requires to be obliterated. Accordingly, sought to allow the petition and set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 19. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Vikas Rojipura, submits that though the enquiry could not be proceeded for certain administrative reasons, but would commence and conclude - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 within a short span of period, if the authorities be permitted to continue with the enquiry. 20. On these facts and circumstances of the case and also the materials before us, no case is made out for interference. However, no enquiry is held despite a Time Bound order being passed by the Tribunal till date, but looking to the allegations made against the applicant, another opportunity as prayed for by Additional Government Advocate requires consideration. 21. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is disposed of, directing the State Authorities to file an application, explaining the circumstances and the hurdles for its delayed action and exceptional circumstances in not commencing the Departmental Enquiry, before the Tribunal for extension of further time to proceed with the enquiry against the applicant. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53970-DB WP No. 32653 of 2025 (ii) It is made clear that if the application is not filed within two weeks from the date of the web hosting of copy of this order, and in any event extension of time sought in the application is not granted by the Tribunal, the State Authorities shall settle all the financial benefits to which the applicant is legally entitled to within one month, immediately after the expiry of two weeks, and if the application is filed and is dismissed, then within one month thereafter. (iii) In the event the application filed is considered and time is extended for the departmental enquiry, the entitlement of financial benefits is as per the directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2024. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR/TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 ct-vn