- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 33373 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: R NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RETIRED POLICE CONSTABLE KARNATAKA RESERVE POLICE CITY ARMED RESERVE (SOUTH) ADUGODI, BENGALURU R/AT NO.325/1, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, HULIMAVU MAIN ROAD, HULIMAVU, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. 1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE R NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. NAVEENKUMAR R.N. S/O LATE R NARASIMHAIAH BOTH ARE R/O NO.8 VRUSHABHAVATHINAGARA KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.V. THILAKRAJ, ADV. FOR SRI H N BASAVARAJU, ADV.) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME (INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION & TRANSPORT) (POLICE SERVICE) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL POLICE COMMISSIONER INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION AND CITY ARMED RESERVE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CITY ARMED RESERVE (SOUTH) ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2001 PASSED BY THE R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-A4, THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2002 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A6, THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2004 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A8 AND THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5336/2004 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The legal representatives of the original petitioner have come on record, since the original petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner was before this Court, questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 16.12.2016 in Application No.5336/2004 wherein the petitioner’s challenge to the order of penalty dated 21.11.2001 (Annexure-A4) is rejected. 3. The petitioner was working as City Armed Reserve Police. The charge memo dated 01.06.2000 (Annexure- A1) came to be issued under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Discipline and Conduct) Rules, 1965. After a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner and one Sri.Vasudev H are proved. On the proved misconduct, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale of APC for a period of five - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 years, with an observation that during the said period, the petitioner would not be entitled for increment and that after completion of five years, pay would restore to original position. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the original petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Police and the Appellate Authority by order dated 05.10.2002 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said rejection of appeal, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department. The Revisional Authority, under order dated 10.02.2004 rejected the revision petition, confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the penalty order and the order of the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.5336/2004. The Tribunal, on consideration of the material placed on record, under impugned order dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 16.12.2016 dismissed the application, against which, the present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.V.Thilakraj for Sri.H.N.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sukanya Baliga for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is opposed to the material on record. Further, he submits that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the charge. Learned counsel would also submit that petitioner was posted to Sentry duty to look after one under-trial prisoner at TB Sanitarium at Bangalore from 9 p.m. to 12 p.m. in the night and not between 6 p.m. to 9. p.m., when an under-trial prisoner escaped. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no material placed on record to establish that the petitioner was deputed for Sentry duty between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 that particular day, i.e. on 22.09.1999. In the absence of Register to show that the petitioner was posted on that particular day i.e., 22.09.1999, the Enquiry Officer could not have come to the conclusion that the charge is proved against the petitioner. Further, learned counsel would submit that without there being any material, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority without going into the material on record, imposed penalty of reduction in pay for a period of five years. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was unwell on that particular day and to that extent, the petitioner has placed on record the Medical Certificate which was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Further, it is submitted that DGO No.1 Sri.Vasudev who was on Sentry duty between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. was responsible for the incident. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the imposition of punishment is without application of mind to the materials placed on record. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 6. Per contra, learned AGA would submit that the punishment imposed is proportionate to the nature and gravity of charge. Further, it is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority placed on record the Patrolling Shift Book, which clearly indicates the posting of the petitioner to the patrolling on that particular day i.e., 22.09.1999 between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Learned AGA would submit that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charge against the petitioner. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to whether the impugned order of penalty as well as the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court? 8. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 The charge against the petitioner in terms of charge memo dated 01.06.2000 (Annexure-A1) reads as follows: “2. CgÀPÀëPÀ ¥ÉÃzÉ 148 £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå, ‘ºÉZï’ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ, ¹.J.Dgï. (zÀQët), CqÀÄUÉÆÃr, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, DzÀ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß n.©. ¸Áå¤mÉÆÃjAiÀÄA D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ SÉÊ¢UÀ¼À PÁªÀ®ÄzÀ¼ÀzÀ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÉëĹzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 22-09-1999 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 6.00 jAzÀ gÁwæ 9 UÀAmɪÀgÉUÉ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.30 ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è PÁªÀ®ÄzÀ¼ÀzÀ C¢üãÀzÀ°èzÀÝ 4 d£À «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üãÀ SÉÊ¢UÀ½UÉ Hl PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¥ÀºÀgÉ ¥ÉÃzÉ 966 ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀ, gÀªÀgÉƧâgÉà PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÉ ¥ÀºÀgÉ ¥ÉÃzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ®¨sÀåªÁUÀzÀ PÁgÀt ¥ÀºÀgÉ ¥ÉÃzÉ 966 ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀ, gÀªÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èzÀ 4 d£À «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üãÀ SÉÊ¢UÀ¼À°è ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ JA¨ÁvÀ£ÀÄ PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ SÁ° ¨Ál®£ÀÄß ¥ÀºÀgÉ ¥ÉÃzÉgÀªÀjUÉ vÉÆÃj¹ ¤ÃgÀÄ vÀgÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV vÀ¦à¹PÉÆAqÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæ CªÀgÀt¢AzÀ ¥ÀgÁj DVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. EAvÀºÀ Cwà ªÀÄÄRåªÁzÀ PÁªÀ®ÄzÀ¼ÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀzÉ ¤jÃPÀëuÁ ¥ÀºÀgÉ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CªÀ¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀĪÁV «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üãÀ SÉÊ¢ ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ JA¨ÁvÀ£ÀÄ PÁªÀ®Ä zÀ¼ÀzÀ ¥ÀºÀgÉ ¥ÉÃzÉgÀªÀgÀ ªÀ±À¢AzÀ vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ¤ÃªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀgÉÆÃPÀëªÁV PÁgÀt PÀvÀðgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. EzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è£À CwêÀ ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝj ºÁUÀÆ ¤®ðPÀëvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 9. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner is that on 22.09.1999, he was posted to TB Sanitarium Hospital to patrol an under-trial prisoner between 9 p.m. to 12 p.m., during which period, the said under-trial prisoner escaped when the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent. In support of the charge, the Disciplinary Authority cited 5 witnesses and placed on record 6 documents. Document No.1 is Patrolling Change Register which discloses the Police Constables who are placed on duty or on patrolling duty. Based on the said register, the Enquiry Officer has categorically held as follows: “C) vÁjÃPÀÄ 22-9-99 gÀAzÀÄ n.©.¸Áå¤mÉÆÃjAiÀÄA C¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ SÉÊ¢UÀ¼À PÁªÀ®Ä zÀ¼ÀzÀ°è CgÉÆævÀ ¥Éưøï C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸ÀAeÉ 6-00 jAzÀ gÁwæ 9-00 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¤jÃPÀëuÁ ¥ÀºÀgÉ PÀvÀðªÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁwæ 9-00 jAzÀ 12-00 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¥ÀºÀgÉ PÀvÀðªÀåªÀÅ ¸ÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ EgÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÀÅ C©üAiÉÆÃUÀ zÁR¯É¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀºÀgÉ §zÀ° ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÁVzÉ. D) vÁjÃPÀÄ 22-9-99 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ: 6-00 jAzÀ ¤jÃPÀëuÁ ¥ÀºÀgÉ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CgÉÆævÀ ¥Éưøï C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝ gÁwæ n.©.¸Áå¤mÉÆÃjAiÀÄA C¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è £Á®ÄÌ d£À SÉÊ¢UÀ½UÉ Hl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀºÀgÉ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°èzÀÝ CgÀPÀëPÀ ¥ÉÃzÉ 966 ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀgÀªÀgÉƧâgÉ EzÀÄÝ UÁqïð PÀªÀiÁAqÀgïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ E®è¢gÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÀÅ «ZÁgÀuɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀàµÀÖ ¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ. E) ¸ÀzÀjà PÁªÀ®Ä zÀ¼ÀzÀ°è CzÉà ¢£À ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 7-30gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è SÉÊ¢UÀ½UÉ Hl PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ°è ¤jÃPÀëuÁ ¥ÀºÀgÉ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°ègÀ¨ÉÃQzÀÝ CgÉÆævÀ ¥Éưøï C¢üPÁj CgÀPÀëPÀ ¥ÉÃzÉ 148 £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁqÀð PÀªÀiÁAqÀgï E§âgÀÆ PÁªÀ®Ä zÀ¼ÀzÀ°è ºÁdjgÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉ, «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üãÀ SÉÊ¢ ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ PÁªÀ®ÄzÀ¼ÀzÀ ªÀ±À¢AzÀ vÀ¦à¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀgÁj CUÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀªÀ EgÀÄwÛgÀ°®è JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖ ¥ÀqÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÁVzÉ. F) DgÉÆævÀ ¦Ã°Ã¸ï C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÁjÃPÀÄ 22-9-99 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 6-00 jAzÀ ¤jÃPÀëuÁ ¥ÀºÀgÉ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä PÁgÀtªÉãÉA§ÄzÁUÀ®Ä CxÀªÁ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ DgÉÆæ¸À¯ÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß C®èUÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀªÀÄxÀð ¤AiÀĪÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÁ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ªÀÄAr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C®èzÉ EªÀgÀÄ CawªÀÄ °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¹gÀĪÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀ®èzÉ CgÉÆævÀ ¥ÉÆðøï C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÁ£ÀĪɸÀVgÀĪÀ vÀ¦ààUÉ ¥ÀævÀÄÊPÀÛªÁV K£À£ÀÆß ºÉÆgÀUÉqÀ«®è.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 10. The Enquiry Officer has placed reliance on the Patrolling Register and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was deputed to patrolling duty between 9 p.m. to 12 p.m. on 22.09.1999 and he remained absent during the said period, allowing one of the under-trial prisoners to escape. The said finding is based on the evidence on record. 11. The scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings is very limited. This Court could examine the decision making process but not the decision itself. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not provided any opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as Appellate Authority to examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence on record. In a departmental proceedings, this Court could interfere with the order of punishment, if it is established that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as imposition of punishment is without evidence. In the instant case, it cannot be said - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33619-DB WP No. 33373 of 2018 that the punishment imposed is without evidence as there is sufficient evidence on record to impose punishment. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have considered the contentions of the petitioner with reference to the material on record, rightly rejected the contentions of the petitioner. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, as the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the enquiry report. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. If the pension and pensionary benefits are not settled, the respondent-Authorities shall settle same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22