- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578 WP No. 200595 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.200595 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. VEERSHETTY RAKSHE S/O HANMANTHAPPA RAKSHE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HUMNABAD, BIDAR- 585 330. RESIDING AT KOUTHA (K), AURAD TALUK, BIDAR 585 421. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.436, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 9TH FLOOR AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR, A.G.A., FOR R1) Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578 WP No. 200595 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY DATED 27-04-2022 BEARING NO.24357 DMA 1 EQG 2018-19 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner has assailed the penalty of censure imposed in terms of order dated 27.04.2022 which is marked at Annexure-A. Writ of mandamus also sought to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Environment) from the date his juniors are promoted vide Annexure-N dated 04.12.2020. 3. It is noticed that the disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and an order came to be passed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578 WP No. 200595 of 2025 on 27.04.2022 imposing censure under Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) of the Rules, 1957. Before imposing the said penalty the disciplinary authority has concluded that the petitioner has not caused any loss either to the State or to the Gram Panchayat and there is misappropriation of funds by the petitioner and decided to drop the proceedings. However, having said so the penalty of censure is imposed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the clean chit is given to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority the penalty of censure could not have been imposed at all. The only course open to the disciplinary authority was to stay the proceedings without imposing any penalty. In addition, he submits that though the penalty of censure has been given effect to, same has to be obliterated to ensure the same does not come in the way of the petitioner’s promotion and during the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry, the decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee on petitioner’s promotion is kept in a sealed cover and to give effect of the order in sealed cover the impugned order has to be set aside. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578 WP No. 200595 of 2025 5. Learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Ramchandra C.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and another in W.P.No.2694/2024, disposed of on 12.11.2024 and would contend that in almost identical circumstances the Division Bench has taken a view that though the penalty of censure takes effect on the same day and it amounts to punishment and same cannot come in the way of the employees’ claim regarding promotion. 6. This court has considered the aforementioned judgment. 7. It is relevant to note that the disciplinary authority has taken a view that no financial loss is caused to the State from the Gram Panchayat and there is no misrepresentation of funds by the petitioner and further there was a decision to drop the decision against the petitioner. Having said so, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the penalty of censure against the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order imposing the penalty of censure is unsustainable and same is quashed. Since the penalty is quashed, the respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578 WP No. 200595 of 2025 authorities shall consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 9. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the petitioner’s claim relating to promotion. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29