- 1 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 5313 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI MANJUNATHA, NOW (CHC10), S/O LATE CHALUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKED AS POLICE CONSTABLE HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-573101 AT PRESENT WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, POLIC STATION, YELAWALA POLICE STATION, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE 571130. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIDHAR G. BIDRE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WRONGLY MADE AS UNDER SECRETARY) INTERNAL DEPARATMENT POLICE SERVICE -B, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 2 . THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY (SOUTH ZONE) MYSORE 570008. 3 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 570004. 4 . THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL SUB DIVISION AND PRE ENQUIRY OFFICER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 570004. 5 . THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, PRIYAPATNA CIRCLE, MYSORE DISTRICT 571107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/05/2021 IN APPLICATION No.7068/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.7068/2017. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.08.2025, THIS DAY K. V. ARAVIND J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) The present writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the unsuccessful applicant challenging the order dated 18.05.2021 passed in Application No.7068/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru. 2. The facts in brief are that, while the petitioner was serving as a Police Constable at Hunsuru Rural Police Station, he was placed under suspension by respondent No.3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and articles of charge were issued. The petitioner denied the charges by filing his reply. An enquiry was thereafter conducted. Three charges were framed against the petitioner. Upon considering the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, the Enquiry Officer held that Charges 1 and 2 were proved, while Charge 3 was not proved, and submitted his report on 30.01.2015. A show-cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply. A corrigendum to the charges was also issued. Thereafter, respondent No.3, - 4 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 by order dated 14.08.2015, imposed the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of the scale i.e., from Rs.12,500–24,000 to Rs.12,500/- for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 14.08.2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 01.07.2016, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under impugned order, rejected the application. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Sri. Sridhar G. Bidre, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Enquiry Officer has held Charges 1 and 2 to be proved against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5. Learned counsel, however, relying on the very evidence of PWs.2 and 5, submits that the testimony of PW.2 merely states that when the PSI, Assistant Commissioner, and Tahsildar visited Hanagodu Village to seize illegal sand, a member of the public showed a photograph and alleged that the police had collected money. It is contended - 5 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 that the said evidence of PW.2 is not specifically directed against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel further submits that even on a consideration of the evidence of PW.5, nothing incriminating is made out against the petitioner. It is urged that the finding recorded against the petitioner on the basis of the testimonies of PWs.2 and 5 is without any foundation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, without adverting to the aforesaid aspects, proceeded to dismiss the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891, to contend that any document relied upon must be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of its contents and capable of deposing as to its authenticity. It is urged that in the present case, the person who handed over the photograph of the petitioner was not examined, nor was its authenticity established. Hence, the said photograph cannot be relied upon as evidence against the petitioner. - 6 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 6. Per contra, Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned AGA appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner was found to have engaged in illegal collection of money for permitting sand mining. It is contended that the evidence of PWs.2 and 5 clearly identifies the petitioner as having visited Hanagodu Village for the purpose of collecting money to facilitate such mining. Relying on the testimony of PW.5, learned AGA further submits that the petitioner was actively supporting illegal sand mining and was frequently enquiring about the movements of the PSI so as to alert the miners in the event of any inspection. 7. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the aforesaid evidence, has rightly held that the petitioner was collecting money to permit illegal transport of sand. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, upon due appreciation of the evidence and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, has rightly rejected the application. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the writ papers. - 7 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 9. Three charges were framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of six witnesses. On the basis of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, the Enquiry Officer held Charge No.1 to be proved. Charge No.2 was held proved on the basis of the testimony of PW.5. The proved charges are as below: ಆೋಪ :- 1. ಇವರು ಾ ಾ ಸರಹನ ಮರಳ ಾಾ ನೆಸುವದರ ಮೂಲಕ ಮರಳ ದಂ!ೆ ನೆಸುವವರ "ೊ#ೆ $ಾ%ೕ&ಾ', ಇ&ಾ(ಾ ಘನ#ೆ*ೆ ಕುಂದು ಉಂ,ಾಗುವಂ#ೆ ವ./0ರುವದರ ಮೂಲಕ ದುನ/ಡ#ೆ ಪ2ದ3/0ರುವ ಬ*ೆ5. 2. ಾ ೆಯ 7ೕ&ಾ89ಾ:ಯವ:*ೆ ಕತ/ವ<ದ ಸಹಕ:ಸ=ೇ, ಾ ೆಯ ಾ>.ಗಳನು? ಸ@Aೕಯ ಮುಖಂಡರು Cಾಗೂ ಾಜEೕಯ ವ<EFಗಳ .Aಸುವದು, ಾಜEೕಯ ಒತFಡ ತಂದು ಕತ/ವ< Hವ/>ಸಲು ಅಡಚ ೆ ಉಂಟು ಾಡು.Fರುವದರ ಮೂಲಕ LೇಜMಾLಾ: Cಾಗೂ Hಲ/NO#ೆ ಪ2ದ3/0ರುವ ಬ*ೆ5. 10. Insofar as Charge No.1 is concerned, reliance is placed on the evidence of PWs.2 and 5. PW.2, a Police Constable at Hunasuru Rural Police Station, deposed that when he, along with the PSI, Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner, visited Hanagodu Village on 07.09.2013 to seize illegal sand, a member of the public produced a photograph of the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, stating that the person in - 8 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 the photograph was regularly collecting money for permitting illegal sand mining. In his cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that the said photograph was shown to him at the police station. He further admitted that the petitioner had been marked in the said photograph and that his identification of the petitioner was based on such marking. 11. PW.5, also a Police Officer, deposed that the petitioner was in the habit of writing anonymous complaints against the staff, was obstructing other Police Officers in the discharge of their duties, and was passing crucial information to political leaders. He further stated that the villagers of Hanagodu, by showing a photograph of the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner, alleged that the petitioner was collecting money from illegal sand miners. PW.5 also deposed that, during inspection of vehicles to prevent illegal sand mining, the petitioner was exerting pressure and influence through political leaders so as to prevent action against illegal sand mining. In cross-examination, however, PW.5 admitted that his deposition was based on what he had heard from the villagers of Hanagodu when they informed the Assistant Commissioner. With regard to the allegation of writing - 9 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 anonymous complaints against the staff, PW.5 admitted that he had no specific details. 12. The Enquiry Officer concluded that Charge Nos.1 and 2 stood proved. However, though the findings are stated to be based on the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, such evidence is insufficient to establish the charges. The testimonies of PWs.2 and 5 do not specifically identify the petitioner in the photograph. Moreover, the photograph, by itself, cannot carry any evidentiary value to prove that the petitioner was collecting money for permitting illegal sand mining. There is no material to establish the presence of the petitioner in the village or to prove collection of money as alleged in the charge. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are, therefore, vague and without any basis. 13. Similarly, with regard to Charge No.2, PW.5 deposed that the petitioner was obstructing inspection of sand lorries by exerting political influence and was communicating details of station movements to political leaders. However, the testimony of PW.5 is vague and without any supporting material. There is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate either of the charges. - 10 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 14. The Tribunal recorded that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses and was also given an opportunity to lead defence evidence, which he did not avail. The Tribunal, without appreciating the contentions advanced by the petitioner and the reliance placed on various judgments, proceeded to hold that it could not re- appreciate the evidence. 15. There is no dispute that the scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings under judicial review is limited. However, it is always open to the Court to examine the decision-making process. In the present case, the charges have been held proved solely on the basis of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5. The testimony of these witnesses is vague, contradictory, and insufficient to establish the charges. While it is true that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in disciplinary proceedings, the charges must nonetheless be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer has concluded against the petitioner by relying on photographs allegedly produced by the villagers of Hanagodu, without any - 11 - WP No. 5313 of 2022 proof of the petitioner’s presence in the said village or of his having collected money from illegal sand miners. 16. On examination of the material on record and on consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that there is no sufficient evidence to establish the charges and it is case of no evidence against the petitioner. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 18.05.2021 in Application No.7068/2017 is set aside. (iii) The order dated 14.08.2015 imposing punishment (Annexure-A16), order of the Appellate Authority dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure-A18), and the order dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-A19) are hereby set aside. *(iv) Consequential order shall be passed within three months from 22.09.2025. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS *Corrected vide Court Order dated 22.09.2025.