- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO.106832 OF 2024 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SMT. FOUJIYA TARANNUM W/O MOHAMMED USMAN AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O WARD NO.4, H.NO.3767, INDIRA COLONY, KUSHTAGI 583277, DIST. KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE -01. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE -01. 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, KALABURGI REGION, VIKAS BHAVAN, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KALABURGI 558 101. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL 583132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOV. ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 R/W 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED IN A. NO.11281/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRELY AND PASS SUCH ORDER AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner, wife of one Mohammed Usman, who was working as Village Accountant in the Revenue Department, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 4.7.2024 in Application No.11281/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi1, whereunder the Tribunal passed the following order: (i) The impugned endorsement order bearing No.KamE 341 BSC 2022 dated 31.07.2023 Annexure-A13 issued by the respondent No.2 is set-aside partly wherein it relates to giving retrial benefits to the applicant for her deceased husband. (ii) Respondents shall consider the case of the applicant under relevant rules and examine whether any retrial benefits can be provided in terms of Rules discussed above after considering the matter afresh within a reasonable time frame of six months from 1 For short, ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 the date of issue of this order and issue appropriate orders thereafter as per Rules. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, when the husband of the petitioner was working as Village Accountant, charge memo dated 8.2.2010 was issued alleging following two charges: “DgÉÆÃ¥À¥ÀnÖ:1 ²æà ªÀĺÀäzï G¸Áä£ï UÁæªÀįÉQÌUÀ §¸Á¥ÀlÖt vÁ:UÀAUÁªÀw DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ UÁæªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¨sÉÃn ¤ÃqÀzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ GAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj C®èzÉà d£À¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÁUÀÆå ¤ªÀÄä ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸Àj¥Àr¹PÉƼÀîzÉà ¤®ðPÀëvÀ£À ªÀ»¹gÀÄwÛÃj. ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ dªÀiÁ§A¢ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ°è ºÁdgï DV CAQ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÀ DVgÀÄwÛÃj. ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ d£À¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄĸÀ¯Á¥ÀÇgÀ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ §¸Á¥ÀlÖtzÀ zÀ¥ÀÛgÀ ZÁdð£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃfvÀ UÁæªÀįÉQÌUÀjUÉ ªÀ»¹PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è EzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:8.7.2009 gÀAzÀÄ ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉÆAqÀ ªÀÄĸÀ¯Á¥ÀÇgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ZÁdð ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ MªÉÄäAiÀÄÆ ¨ÉÃn ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ d£ÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D°¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F §UÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ:25.07.2009 gÀAzÀÄ d£À¸ÀàAzÀ£À ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw PÀvÀðªÀåZÀÄåwUÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¸ÉêÁ ªÀVðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¦Ã®Ä) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1957 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. DgÉÆÃ¥À ¥ÀnÖ-2 ²æà ªÀĺÀäzï G¸Áä£ï UÁæªÀįÉQÌUÀ §¸Á¥ÀlÖt vÁ:UÀAUÁªÀw DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ §¸Á¥ÀlÖt UÁæªÀįÉQÌUÀgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¨ÁQ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ ¥ÀæUÀw ¸Á¢ü¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ §¸Á¥ÀlÖt UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¨ÁQ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ºÀt gÀÆ.21011-00 ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀPÉÌ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ¸ÀgÀPÁj ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄ«j. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¨ÁQ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ gÀ²Ã¢ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtð ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ »A¢gÀÄV¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EzÀjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄ«j. F jÃw PÀvÀðªÀåZÀÄåwUÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¦Ã®Ä) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1957 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²¹Û£À PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.” 3. Enquiry Officer, who was appointed to enquire into the allegations against the husband of the petitioner, submitted an enquiry report, which is placed on record as Annexure-A3 holding that the charges against the husband of the petitioner are proved and the petitioner was issued with 2nd show-cause notice dated 3.8.2011 and as the husband of the petitioner failed to submit reply, memo dated 1.6.2012 came to be issued dismissing the husband of the petitioner from service under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 19572, against which, the husband of the petitioner is said to have filed an appeal. In terms of Annexure-A7, the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority and the Regional Commissioner, Gulbarga, the order of dismissal was stayed and thereafter, by order dated 30.4.2018, the appeal was dismissed and by 2 For short ‘CCA Rules’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 Official Memorandum dated 4.6.2018, the husband of the petitioner was relieved from the duty. 4. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner is stated to have died on 26.03.2022. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.11281/2023 questioning the order of dismissal as well as the order of appellate authority. The Tribunal under impugned order passed the order as extracted above. Questioning the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel, Sri.S.B.Hebballi for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State authorities. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Learned counsel, Sri.S.B.Hebballi appearing for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry against the husband of the petitioner is vitiated for not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules. Learned counsel would point out that, before the enquiry officer, no witnesses - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 were examined by the disciplinary authority, however without examining any witness and without having produced the documents in accordance with Rule 11 of CCA Rules, the enquiry officer could not have looked into the documents to arrive at a conclusion that the charges are proved against the delinquent official. 7. It is submitted that based on the perfunctory enquiry, order of penalty of dismissal was passed, which was the subject matter of appeal. It is submitted that the appellate authority failed to examine as to whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of CCA Rules was followed or not. 8. Learned counsel, Sri.S.B.Hebballi would submit by inviting attention of this Court to the Tribunal’s order that without setting aside the order of penalty, the Tribunal could not have directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of retiral benefits. Learned counsel would submit that when the allegation against the husband of the petitioner is misappropriation of money, in the absence of evidence either oral or documentary, the enquiry officer’s conclusion is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 erroneous and perverse. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the government servant during his lifetime failed to challenge the order of penalty of dismissal and the wife of the deceased government servant is before this Court subsequently. It is also submitted that there is delay of more than 5 years in approaching the Tribunal. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the deceased government servant has failed to participate in the proceedings and he never cared to submit his reply either to the charge memo or to the show-cause notice. In the above circumstances, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsels for parties and on perusal of the entire petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: i. Whether in the enquiry against the husband of the petitioner procedure under Rule 11 of CCA Rules is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 followed and if not followed whether enquiry gets vitiated? ii. Whether interference with the order passed by the Tribunal is warranted? 11. Answer to both the above points would be in affirmative for the following reasons: 12. A perusal of articles of charge placed on record at Annexure-A3 indicates that one of the charge against the petitioner is misappropriation of an amount of Rs.21,011/-. When such serious allegation of misappropriation is alleged, it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to prove the charge by placing on record cogent evidence. It is an admitted fact that the deceased government servant has not participated in the proceedings. Even in the absence of participation of delinquent government official in the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer shall follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 11(11) of CCA Rules. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 13. Rule 11(11) of CCA Rules reads as follows: “11. Procedure for imposing major penalties. (1) XXXXX (2) XXXXX (3) XXXXX (4) XXXXX (5) XXXXX (6) XXXXX (7) XXXXX (8) XXXXX (9) XXXXX (10) XXXXX (11) The Inquiring Authority shall, if the Government servant fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the article of charge and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days after recording an order that the Government servant may, for the purpose of preparing his defence:- (i) inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the Inquiring Authority may allow, the documents specified in the list referred to in sub-rule (3); (ii) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf; (iii) apply orally or in writing to inspect and take extracts of the statements, if any, of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub rule (3) and the Inquiring Authority shall permit him to take such extracts as early as possible and in any case not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 (iv) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Inquiring Authority may allow for the discovery or production of any documents which are in the possession of Government but not mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3):- Provided that the Government servant shall indicate the relevance of the documents required by him to be discovered or produced by the Government.” 14. A reading of the above Rule makes it abundantly clear that when the delinquent government servant fails to appear before the enquiry officer, it requires the enquiry officer to call upon the presenting officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charges. In the instant case, admittedly no witness or evidence is produced by the presenting officer. The enquiry report indicates that the enquiry officer has recorded findings based on the original file produced by the Office of the Tahasildar, Gangavathi Taluk and on submission of the presenting officer. When the presenting officer has not produced any witnesses or documents and when the documents are not marked through the witnesses on behalf of disciplinary authority, the enquiry officer could not have - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 looked into any of the files made available by the Office of the Tahasildar. 15. The appellate authority-Regional Commissioner is required to examine the appeal in terms of Rule 25 of the CCA Rules. Rule 25 of CCA Rules requires the appellate authority to examine as to whether procedure prescribed under CCA Rules has been complied with and if not whether such non- compliance has resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or violation of natural justice. The appellate authority has failed to perform its duty in terms of Rule 25 of CCA Rules. 16. The Tribunal under the impugned order, without setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal could not have directed to consider the matter afresh with regard to the retiral benefits. 17. Learned Additional Government Advocate contended that there is delay in approaching the Tribunal. It is relevant to note that the petitioner-wife of the deceased government servant had submitted representation and to the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 said representation, Annexure-A13 communication dated 31.07.2023 was issued and thereafter the petitioner approached the Tribunal within the time prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. When the government servant died in the year 2022 that too after the dismissal, it is not known whether petitioner-wife of the deceased government servant was aware of the dismissal of her husband. Normally when a major penalty of dismissal or removal is imposed without following the prescribed procedure and in the peculiar facts of the present case technical plea of delay pales into insignificance, moreover when the Tribunal in its discretion has entertained the application and when no objection with regard to delay was raised before the Tribunal. 18. In the above circumstances and in the light of the endorsement at Annexure-A13 dated 31.07.2023, we are of the view that the delay cannot be held against the petitioner. 19. However, we make it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for any arrears of salary or for any other - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 benefit except the family pension and retirement benefits of the deceased government servant. 20. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part; ii. Order of the Tribunal dated 04.07.2024 in Application No.11281/2023 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, Application No.11281/2023 is allowed in part; iii. Order being No. PÀA/¹¹J/04/2009-10/PÀA¥ÀÆålgï £ÀA:2992 dated 01.06.2012 (Annexure-A5), order dated 30.04.2018 bearing No. PÀA:¥ÁæDPÀ/²¸ÀÄÛ/C¦Ã®Ä/13/2013-14 (Annexure-A8), order dated 04.06.2018 bearing No.PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/¹¹J/04/2009-10/PÀ.¸ÀA.2992 (Annexure-A9) and communication dated 31.07.2023 bearing No.PÀAE 341 ©J¸ï¹ 2022 (Annexure-A13) are quashed; - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14615-DB WP No. 106832 of 2024 iv. The respondents are directed to consider and grant family pension to the petitioner and retirement benefits entitled to her husband deceased government servant; v. Except the retirement benefit and the family pension, the petitioner would not be entitled for any other benefit. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR Sh, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20