- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 72272 OF 2012 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MR. BHIMAPPA SIDDAPPA NAIK S/O SIDDAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS UPPARGALLI, KONNUR POST - 591 231 GOKAK TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, A/W SRI. VITHAL S TELI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATHI, BY ITS REGISTRAR BANGALORE - 560 056 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 2. VISHVESHWARAIAH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DEPT OF MECHINAL ENGINEERING, KR CIRCLE, BY ITS CHAIRMAN BANGALORE - 560 001 3. CHAIRMAN, DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING VISHVESHWARAIAH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING , K R CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001 4. ENQUIRY OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR (GEN DEPT) BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATI BANGALORE - 560 056 (DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.09.2016) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. T.P. RAJENDRAKUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R2 & R3 V/O DATED 29.09.2016 R4 IS DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY COMPRISING OF THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA AND THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 CHANCELLOR OF BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE, DATED 27.02.2009. QUASH THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 30.08.2003 AT ANNEXURE-N AND RESPONDENT'S PUNITIVE ORDER DATED 31.12.2003 AT ANNEXURE-R AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT Nos.1, 2 AND 3 REINSTATED THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Appellate authority, dated 26.02.2009 vide Annexure-S, dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner was appointed as a helper in respondent No. 2 - Department. The petitioner remain unauthorised absence from 20.09.2001 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 30.07.2002. The respondents initiated a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner did not participated in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer submitted a report. The respondent - university based on the inquiry report passed an order imposing penalty. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of penalty, filed an appeal before the Governor and Chancellor, the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and latches. Hence, this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer has not granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case and he also submits that the appellate authority without considering the sufficient cause shown by the petitioner, for preferring the appeal at the belated stage, has dismissed the appeal on the ground of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 delay. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, respondent No. 1 supported the impugned order and contended that the University has issued the article charges, imputation of misconduct and list of witnesses. The inquiry officer has provided sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. Despite granting sufficient time, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity and the appointing authority has rightly passed an order of punishment. He also submits that the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed in respondent No.2 -department in 1999. It is alleged that the petitioner has remained absent unauthorisedly from 20.09.2001 to 30.07.2002. The petitioner issued a show cause notice and also the article of charges and a regular inquiry was initiated. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner did not participated in the inquiry proceedings, despite granting sufficient opportunity. The inquiry officer based on the records produced by respondent No.1 has submitted a report stating that the charges levied against the petitioner are proved. Respondent No.1, after the receipt of inquiry report, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner along with an inquiry report. The petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. Thus, respondent No.1 passed an order of punishment imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the appointing authority i.e., - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority along with an application for condonation of delay. 9. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. While dismissing the appeal, the appellate authority has not assigned any reasons for dismissing the appeal except recording the ground of delay and latches for dismissal and further except stating that after considering the report furnished by the University and as per the relevant provisions of CC & A Statutes, the appeal has dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, it has not assigned any reasons for such dismissal. Though the petitioner has shown the sufficient cause for condoning a delay in preferring the appeal, without considering the said aspect, the appellate authority has committed an error in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 10. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another vs Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the Court must be liberal. The appellate authority without considering the exposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another (referred supra) has passed an impugned order. Thus, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is contrary to the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52028 WP No. 72272 of 2012 ii. The impugned order dated 26.02.2009 vide Annexure-S is hereby set aside. iii. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored. iv. The appellate authority is directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner for hearing and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. v. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority on 12.01.2026, and the appellate authority after hearing the parties shall pass the appropriate order in accordance with law by assigning detail reasons. vi. Pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV