- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36546-DB WP No. 1721 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.1721 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI B. NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O. BASAVEGOWDA WORKING AS APC, 154 ARMED RESERVE, HQ CHAMARAJANAGARA, MYSURU R/AT NO.8, SUVARNAVATHY BLOCK POLICE HEAD QUARTERS NEAR DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR STADIUM CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN - 571 313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT (POLICE SERVICES-B) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTHEREN RANGE, JALPURI MYSURU - 570 010. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36546-DB WP No. 1721 of 2023 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, A.G.A.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.08.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A NO.783/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LAW. THIS WRIT PETITION IS 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND) Heard Sri Mahesh.L, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Ravindranath, learned AGA for the respondents. 2. The unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal in Application No.783/2022 has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Karnataka State - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36546-DB WP No. 1721 of 2023 Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The petitioner, while serving as an Armed Police Constable at Chamarajanagar, was issued a charge memo on 28.01.2014. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 26.11.2014 holding the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after issuing a show cause notice and considering the reply, by order dated 27.01.2015, imposed the penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner to the bottom of the scale of his present post for a period of ten years. The period of suspension from 13.11.2013 to 04.12.2013 was treated as suspension. The petitioner's appeal preferred against the penalty order came to be rejected on 31.10.2017. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal on 22.02.2022. The petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36546-DB WP No. 1721 of 2023 delay of four years and four months in filing the application. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the said application on the ground of delay. 4. Sri Mahesh.L, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that subsequent to the penalty order, the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal within the prescribed time, which came to be rejected on 31.10.2017. It is submitted that immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached an Advocate at Bengaluru to file an application before the Tribunal challenging the orders of penalty and the appellate authority. However, on account of the inaction of the said Advocate, the application was not filed within the period of limitation. It is further submitted that owing to the Covid-19 pandemic and the petitioner’s responsibility towards his aged parents, he was unable to travel to Bengaluru to engage the services of another Advocate. The learned counsel contends that the case papers were subsequently taken back from the earlier Advocate and entrusted to another Advocate for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36546-DB WP No. 1721 of 2023 purpose of filing the application. While returning the papers, the earlier Advocate misplaced certain documents, and the process of securing certified copies consumed considerable time. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the explanation offered for condonation of delay and committed an error in rejecting the application. 5. Sri B. Ravindranath, learned AGA appearing for the respondents, submits that the order imposing penalty was passed in the year 2015 and the appeal against the said order was dismissed on 31.10.2017. It is submitted that the application before the Tribunal came to be filed only in the year 2022. Covid-19, however, occurred during March 2020. Learned AGA contends that there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay between 2017 and 2020. It is further submitted that the explanation offered is not justifiable, as the relevant particulars are not forthcoming in the application. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36546-DB WP No. 1721 of 2023 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we note that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is dated 27.01.2015, against which the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 31.10.2017. The orders of penalty and appellate authority came to be challenged only in the year 2022. The petitioner has sought to explain the delay by contending that he had entrusted the papers for filing an application before the Tribunal to an Advocate and that, on account of the Advocate’s failure to prepare and present the application, delay occurred. It is further submitted that the delay stood compounded due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as the petitioner could not travel to Bengaluru owing to his responsibility towards his aged parents and his own illness due to Covid-19 infection. It is also stated that a fresh set of papers had to be obtained from the concerned authorities, as the earlier Advocate failed to return all the original documents. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36546-DB WP No. 1721 of 2023 7. We have examined the explanation offered by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of more than four years. In the application, except for a general narration, no particulars have been furnished, such as the dates or details regarding when the documents were obtained from the competent authorities. No such particulars are forthcoming either from the application or from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal, upon consideration of these aspects, rightly concluded that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of more than four years. On a reappraisal of the explanation offered both before the Tribunal and in the present petition, we find that the petitioner has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioner that the penalty was imposed without evidence, nor has he contended that he was denied reasonable opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36546-DB WP No. 1721 of 2023 8. Apart from the above, we have also examined the charge levelled against the petitioner and the evidence on record on the basis of which the penalty has been imposed. Having regard to the grievous nature of the charge, the evidence available on record, and the penalty imposed, we are of the considered view that the order of penalty is reasonable. No contrary material has been placed before us to warrant interference with the same. 9. In light of the foregoing discussion, both on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE ND/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31