- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47914-DB WP No. 15355 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 15355 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA. 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, HOLALKERRE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N PRAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47914-DB WP No. 15355 of 2025 2. SRI.V.S.BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O.V.M.SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SHIVAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, RESIDENT AT SHIVAPRASAD NILAYA BASAVA LAYOUT HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. Y.G.MITHUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN A.NO.5200/2023 DATED 01/10/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO DISMISS THE ABOVE APPLICATION; ALTERNATIVELY, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN A.NO.5200/2023 DATED 01/10/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO REMAND THE ABOVE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF ENQUIRY OFFICER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CONDUCT FRESH ENQUIRY AGAINST THE ABOVE ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A3 DATED 21/07/2016 MARKED IN A.NO.5200/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47914-DB WP No. 15355 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioners - the employers of the second respondent - are aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2024 in Application No.5200/2023 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal has interfered with the first petitioner's order dated 06.01.2023. The first petitioner has found the second respondent and others guilty of misconduct and has imposed the penalty of denial of three increments with cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of Rs.1,24,834/-. The second respondent, at the relevant time was working as an In-charge Panchayath Development Officer, and the allegations are about irregularities in the execution of the MGNREGA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47914-DB WP No. 15355 of 2025 Scheme, and the imputation is about the second respondent’s failure to maintain proper accounts in the execution of the work. The Tribunal has interfered with the order observing thus: Looking to the Enquiry Officer's report, in this case produced as a part of Annexure- A7 - the 2nd show cause notice. It is in the tabular form. The enquiry report consists of only two pages, that too, in the tabular form. There are four columns and the 1st column is what are the charges and in that column, two charges were mentioned. In the 2nd column, the statement of the DGO is mentioned and the 3rd column is statement / report of the Presenting Officer and the 4th column, is about the report of the Enquiry Officer. Perusing the Enquiry Officer's report, it is cryptic in nature and it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer's report is a speaking report. No documents were marked and no oral evidences were recorded by the Enquiry officer. During the course of hearing, when the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that oral evidence of the witnesses are not recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the learned Additional Government Advocate for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47914-DB WP No. 15355 of 2025 the 1st respondent also submitted that no oral evidence of the witnesses were recorded. 9. Looking to the said provision, first there must be an examination in chief by the Presenting Officer, then cross examination of the witnesses by the defense assistant / applicant himself and by reading examination in chief and the cross examination in respect of any particular fact if there is an ambiguity, then to clarify the same there has to be re- examination of the witnesses. This mandatory requirement is not at all followed by the Enquiry Officer as no oral evidence of witnesses recorded and no documents were got marked. Therefore, as I have already observed above, it is a cryptic report and not a speaking report." The Tribunal has opined that the inquiry is not as required under the law in the report. Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, attempts to persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order stating that there will be an opportunity to the second respondent to highlight any infirmity when the second show cause - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47914-DB WP No. 15355 of 2025 notice is issued, but ultimately, the learned counsel submits that this Court may dispose of the petition observing that the outcome in the present proceedings may not foreclose further proceedings against this respondent. The allegations relate to the year 2006-2007, and this in itself must suffice, but then, the learned counsel in making this request seeks liberty to begin another inquiry. This cannot be permissible in law, and as such, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RB