- 1 - WP No.19651 of 2025 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.19651 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1 . E. S. PRASANNA, AGED 50 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI KODANDA RAO, C/O CHARLIE, CHIKKATHUR VILLAGE, HARANGI ROAD, KUSHALNAGAR, KARNATAKA-571234. WORKING AS PC (DAR), MADIKERI, KODAGU (NOW DISMISSED FROM SERVICE) ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHANRAJ DORAISWAMY A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KODAGU DIST., MADIKERI PINCODE-57120. 2 . INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTHERN RANGE, MYSORE DISTRICT-570019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No.19651 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.04.2025 (ANNEXURE-A5) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL THEREBY DIRECT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO RESTORE O.A No.2032- 2034 OF 2013 AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME ON MERITS. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.08.2025, THIS DAY K. V. ARAVIND J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: 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) Heard Sri A. Mohanraj Doraiswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order in M.A. No.2/2025 in O.A. Nos.2032 to 2034/2013, dated 17.04.2025, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner joined service as a Police Constable in the year 1996. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 01.04.2011 on the ground of unauthorized - 3 - WP No.19651 of 2025 absence. A departmental enquiry was initiated in accordance with Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). A charge sheet was drawn against the petitioner, and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charge proved. After issuance of a show cause notice, an order of dismissal from service came to be passed against the petitioner on 04.02.2012. The petitioner preferred O.A. Nos. 2032 to 2034/2013 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the applications on 11.04.2018 for non-prosecution. 4. The petitioner filed M.A. No. 2/2025 seeking restoration of O.A. Nos. 2032 to 2034/2013 along with an interlocutory application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, rejected M.A. No.2/2025 on the ground of delay. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Sri A. Mohanraj Doraiswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has diligently prosecuted his case by filing the original application before the Appellate Authority and thereafter before the Tribunal. It is submitted that during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was also charge-sheeted before the Trial Court. - 4 - WP No.19651 of 2025 Though the original application was filed in the year 2013, the same was not taken up for consideration for a considerable period, as the matter was kept pending awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings. 5.1 Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was informed by his counsel appearing before the Tribunal that till the adjudication of the criminal proceedings, the original application would not be taken up for hearing. Believing such advice, the petitioner did not follow-up the matter before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that in November 2024, the criminal proceedings culminated in an order acquitting the petitioner of all the offences charged. When the order of acquittal was produced before the Tribunal seeking adjudication of the original application, the petitioner came to know that the said application had already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.04.2018. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous application along with an interlocutory application for condonation of delay, citing the aforesaid reasons. 5.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq and another - 5 - WP No.19651 of 2025 vs. Munshilal and another [(1981) 2 SCC 788], to contend that a party should not be made to suffer for lapses on the part of his counsel. Further reliance is placed on State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena and others [(1996) 6 SCC 417], to contend that disciplinary proceedings ought to await the outcome of criminal proceedings when the charges are identical. 5.3. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal, without appreciating the bona fide reasons for not pursuing the original application and the dismissal thereof on account of the erroneous advice by the counsel representing the petitioner, and without assigning justifiable reasons, rejected the application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a strong case on merits, and if the application is not considered on merits, the rights of the petitioner would stand prejudiced, causing irreparable hardship. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, while justifying the impugned order of the Tribunal, submits that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are independent of each other. It is contended that the plea of the petitioner that he was informed - 6 - WP No.19651 of 2025 by his counsel that the application before the Tribunal could not be considered till disposal of the criminal proceedings is without any basis. It is further submitted that the inordinate delay of more than six years has not been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, it is urged that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 8. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry in the year 2011, and the Enquiry Report was submitted in the same year. Consequent thereto, an order of dismissal from service was passed on 04.02.2012. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority on 07.08.2012. The petitioner then preferred an application before the Tribunal on 19.02.2013. The said application was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal on 11.04.2018. 9. In the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case in November 2024. Thereafter, the application seeking restoration of O.A. Nos. 2032–2034/2013 was filed on - 7 - WP No.19651 of 2025 02.01.2025. The aforesaid dates are noted for the purpose of examining the due diligence exercised by the petitioner in prosecuting his cause. Though the application was filed before the Tribunal in 2013 and the respondent filed its reply statement on 19.12.2014, the matter was listed for hearing only in December 2017, and thereafter in March 2018, ultimately came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.04.2018. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was diligent in prosecuting his rights and that the application came to be rejected only on account of the erroneous advice of his counsel to the effect that the Tribunal would not consider the application till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. This contention, on the face of it, is untenable. It is a well-settled position of law that criminal proceedings and departmental enquiries are independent, and the degree of proof required therein is altogether different. 11. The reason assigned by the petitioner for not prosecuting the application is not acceptable to this Court. It is a settled principle that an aggrieved party must be afforded an opportunity to ventilate his grievance; however, it necessarily - 8 - WP No.19651 of 2025 follows that such party must also be diligent in exercising his rights. On a consideration of the chronology of events, it is evident that soon after the departmental enquiry held in 2011 and the order of dismissal passed on 04.02.2012, the petitioner diligently exercised his right by preferring an appeal before the departmental authority and, thereafter, by approaching the Tribunal. 12. From the order of the Tribunal, it can be gathered that pleadings were completed in the year 2013, but the matter was listed for hearing only in December 2017 and was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.04.2018. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case in November 2024, and immediately thereafter produced the order of acquittal before the Tribunal, only to discover that his application had already been dismissed. He then promptly took steps by filing an application seeking restoration. 13. Having regard to the above chronology, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been indolent in prosecuting his case. While it is necessary to afford the petitioner an opportunity, the equities and interests of both the petitioner and the State are required to be balanced. The balance can be struck by restoring - 9 - WP No.19651 of 2025 the application before the Tribunal for adjudication on merits, while at the same time denying the petitioner financial benefits for the period between the date of dismissal of the application, i.e., 11.04.2018, and the date of the final order to be passed by the Tribunal, in case the petitioner succeeds before the Tribunal. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 11.04.2018 in O.A.Nos.2032-2034/2013 and order dated 17.04.2025 in M.A.No.2/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru are set aside. (iii) O.A.Nos.2032 to 2034/2013 is restored to file. (iv) The contentions of both the parties are kept open. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. (v) The petitioner, if succeeds in the application, is not entitled to financial benefits from - 10 - WP No.19651 of 2025 11.04.2018 till the order to be passed by the Tribunal pursuant to this order. (vi) Considering that the application is of the year 2013, we request the Tribunal to consider expeditious disposal of the same. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV