- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 108342 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVALING HOSUR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RABAKAVI BANAHATTI-587312 R/O. RAJAPUR-591224 TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ K. MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS PRISONS DEPARTMENT NO. 4, SHEDHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU-560100. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, VIJAYAPURA VIJAYAPURA-586103 TQ/DIST VIJAYAPURA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: I. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.08.2021 BEARING NO.EST2/CR-57/2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. II. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 08.03.2022 BEARING NO.KEKAVI/CV-1/5197/2020- 21 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. III. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 18.01.2022 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT TO REFUND THE PETITIONER THE SUM OF RS 2,64,797/- (RUPEES TWO LAKHS SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN ONLY) PAID VIDE CHALLAN DATED 05.08.2021 (ANNEXURE-E). IV. DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.08.2021 BEARING NO.KEKAVI/A/1424/2021-22 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-D DEMANDING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT RS.2,64,797/- RECEIVED DURING PERIOD OF TRAINING TOWARDS SALARY AND ALLOWANCES IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE RULE 76(8) OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES RULES. V. PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs. I. “Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned proceedings dated 31.08.2021 bearing no.EST2/CR-57/2021 issued by Respondent No.1 at vide ANNEXURE-F in the interest of justice and equity. II. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned endorsement dated 08.03.2022 bearing no.KEKAVI/CV-1/5197/2020-21 issued by Respondent No.3 at vide ANNEXURE-J in the interest of justice and equity. III. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the representations dated 18.01.2022 at vide Annexure-H and direct to refund the petitioner the sum of Rs 2,64,797/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Seven only) paid vide challan dated 05.08.2021 (ANNEXURE- E). IV. Declare that the impugned endorsement dated 03.08.2021 bearing No.KEKAVI/A/1424/2021-22 at vide ANNEXURE-D demanding the Petitioner to deposit rs.2,64,797/- received during period of training towards salary and allowances is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Rule 76(8) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. V. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is similarly placed to that of the respondents in Writ Petition No.3801 of 2022 disposed of on 19.09.2022. The State had preferred the said writ petition against the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had allowed the case of the respondents therein. The same reads as under: “Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the Addl. Director General and Inspector General of Prisons, Chief Superintendent, Central Prisons, Mysuru, and the Superintendent, Taluka Sub-Jail, K. R. Nagara, Mysuru District. The respondents are the applicant and the Managing Director of BMTC respectively. 3. The facts in a nutshell are that respondent No.1 was appointed as a Lady Warder by petitioner No.2 herein and was given posting. Petitioner No.2 thereafter by order dated 11.07.2012 directed the applicant to report with petitioner No.3. That thereafter on 22.01.2013, the applicant was deputed for fundamental training and in accordance with Rule 76 (8) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs), the period spent on training would be treated as duty. After completion of training, the applicant has reported back to petitioner No.3. 4. That thereafter there was an invitation by respondent No.2 herein inviting the applications for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and the applicant obtained NOC from the competent authority and applied for the said post. Thereafter, respondent No.1/applicant was successful 4 and her name came to be included in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 select list. Accordingly, the applicant submitted her resignation and thereafter, is said to have proceeded to training with respondent No.2 herein. Upon receipt of the resignation, petitioner No.2 by notice dated 03.12.2014 directed the applicant to remit a sum of Rs.1,45,778/- being the sum equivalent to the sum paid by way of salary during the period of training and that the payment was made a precondition for accepting the resignation. Aggrieved, respondent No.1/applicant approached the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after examining the matter concluded that the matter was squarely covered by an earlier decision rendered by it in the case of Swamy S. K. vs. The Addl. Director General & Inspector General of Prisons and Anr. (A.No.3246/2012, DD 24.06.2013), wherein the Tribunal has recorded in paragraph No.6 of the Swamy S.K. judgment as under:- “6. There is no dispute that the applicant who was working as a Warder in the Prisons department since 1.1.2008 applied for the post of Excise Guard after obtaining no objection certificate from the first respondent vide Annexure-A3 dated 18.8.2009. However, vide OM dated 17.9.2010 at Annexure-A4 the applicant was deputed for training and the applicant completed the training that was held from 1.10.2010 to 30.6.2011. We also find that satisfactory declaration of probationary period in relation to the applicant has also been made as per Annexure-A1 dated 2.11.2010. The applicant had to undergo foundation training from 1.10.2010 since he was deputed to such training by the first respondent who had earlier issued no objection certificate to the applicant to apply for the post of Excise Guard. On his selection and appointment to the post of Excise Guard, the applicant requested his official superior to relieve him and since the first respondent refused to relieve the applicant on the ground of shortage of Warders in the Prisons department, the applicant submitted his resignation to the post of Warder. As rightly contended on behalf of the applicant as per Rule 76(8) of KCSRs., a government servant deputed to undergo a course of instructions or training authorized by or under the orders of the competent authority has to be treated as on duty. In this case, the first respondent had deputed the applicant for training and the fact that the training period is treated as duty is specifically - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 mentioned in the OM dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure- A4) by which the applicant was deputed for training. When the applicant is on duty, there cannot be any dispute that he is entitled to pay and allowances for the said period. In the said circumstance, the action taken by the first respondent to recover the said sum when the applicant who was left with no other option but to tender resignation to the post of Warder on his selection and appointment to the post of Excise Guard is not justified. In this connection, on behalf of the respondents it is contended that as per the terms and conditions of the training approved by the Government on 19.9.2010 in the Government letter No. HD 93 PRE 96, the applicant is liable to repay the pay and allowances drawn by him during the training period along with Rs.2,000/- in the event of not completing the minimum service of five years after such training. In this regard, our attention is drawn to the manual relating to the training of Warders and Head Warders and it is contended that as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein, the applicant is liable to repay the pay and allowances along with Rs.2,000/- to the Government. Firstly, we may note that any condition in the manual cannot go contrary to Rule 76(8) of KCSRs., as per which the period of training has to be treated as duty. Secondly, we find that there is no undertaking given by the applicant to repay the salary and allowances received by him during the training period. We find that as per the OM dated 17.9.2010 issued by the first respondent, the official superior of the applicant ought to have obtained an undertaking from the applicant to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned in the training manual as mentioned in the said OM. It is not the case of the first respondent that any such letter of undertaking was obtained from the applicant. On the other hand, from the letter dated 28.5.2013 addressed to the first respondent from the Principal of the training college and the letter dated 28.5.2013 sent by the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, K.R. Nagar to the first respondent, copies of which are produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate along with the memo dated 10.6.2013 before this Tribunal, it can be said that no such letter of undertaking was obtained from the applicant binding him to repay the salary and allowances received by him during the training period. In the absence of any undertaking obtained from the applicant, the first respondent cannot direct recovery of the pay and allowances paid to the applicant.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 6. Reliance was also placed on another ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Mallikarjun N. Biradar vs. The Addl. Director General & Inspector General of Prisons & Anr. (A.No.8135/2014, DD 20.01.2016). The matter being squarely covered by the observations therein, the Tribunal deemed it fit to allow the case of the applicant also. Aggrieved, the Department is before this Court. 7. We have perused the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal while disposing of earlier applications which are extracted in paragraph No.12 of the impugned order. The Tribunal has held that official respondents/petitioners herein are bound by the rigor of Rule 76(8) of the KCSR which specifically states that the period spent during training is to be treated as period spent on duty. 8. That apart, we see that in the instant case, the petitioners have also given their NOC thereby enabling the applicant to apply to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. Having given their NOC and allowed the applicant to strive and work hard for success in her endeavor, the petitioners 9 could not have made a u-turn. It is not the case of the petitioners that the NOC was a conditional NOC nor is the learned High Court Government Pleader able to point out any provisions which enables them to impose any such condition while granting NOC. What is even more abrasive is the fact that the respondent No.2 is none other than a wing of the Government. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have incurred any specific amounts for imparting training. In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification for the writ petition. 10. It is also pertinent to note that two applications allowed by the Tribunal in similar circumstances referred to in the impugned order have apparently become final and petitioners are the very same parties in the said applications also. Despite being aware of the settled position, the instant writ petition is preferred. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited into the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund within a period of eight weeks. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 The writ petition is ordered accordingly.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is similarly placed, which is not disputed by the learned HCGP. 4. In the light of the issue standing answered by the Division Bench, as quoted supra, the petition deserves to succeed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings dated 31.08.2021 bearing No. EST2/CR-57/2021 issued by respondent No.1, vide Annexure-F, are hereby quashed. iii. The impugned endorsement dated 08.03.2022 bearing No. KEKAVI/CV-1/5197/2020-21 issued by respondent No.3, vide Annexure-J, is also set aside. iv. A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure-H) and to refund to the petitioner a sum of ₹2,64,797/- (Rupees - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15638 WP No. 108342 of 2025 Two Lakhs Sixty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Seven only) paid vide challan dated 05.08.2021 (Annexure-E), in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. v. It is declared that the impugned endorsement dated 03.08.2021 bearing No. KEKAVI/A/1424/2021-22, vide Annexure-D, demanding deposit of ₹2,64,797/- received during the training period towards salary and allowances, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to Rule 76(8) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103