- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 11898 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. K. H. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O N. HUCHAPPA, JUNIOR KAS (RULE 32), NOW PRESENTLY, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SHIVAMOGGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M S BUILDING, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALOORU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R1; SRI KUMAR H. D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/06/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.40/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) ETC. THIS PETITION, 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 S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 22.06.2021 in Application No.40/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), whereby the petitioner's prayer to quash the order of penalty dated 26.11.2009 withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect is rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Tasildhar, Shikaripura, by Government Order dated 08.02.2017, an enquiry against the petitioner was entrusted to respondent No.2-Lokayukta under Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'KCS (CCA) Rules'). In pursuance of the order of entrustment, respondent No.2-Lokayukta issued Articles of Charge dated 11.07.2017 alleging that the petitioner has failed to take action on the application dated 26.12.2013 submitted by the complainant-Veerabhadrappa of Kalmane Village, Shikaripura Taluk, for Phodi and fixation of boundary of the land in Survey No.141, measuring 2.03 acres, thereby he is negligent, failed to maintain absolute integrity and committed an act of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 2.1 The enquiry officer, nominated by respondent No.2- Lokayukta, conducted enquiry and submitted a report dated 16.01.2019 holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved and submitted a report to Upalokayukta. The Upalokayukta forwarded the report along with his - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 recommendation to the State Government. The State Government issued a second show cause notice dated 20.02.2019 enclosing the enquiry report as well as the recommendation of Upalokayukta. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 12.07.2019 to the second show cause notice. The State Government, under the impugned penalty order dated 26.11.2019, in exercise of its power under Rule 8(iii) of KCS (CCA) Rules, imposed punishment of withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. 2.2 Questioning the said order, petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal under the impugned order rejected the prayer of the petitioner to interfere with the order of penalty only on the ground that the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate body to re-appreciate the entire material and held that the punishment imposed is based on the materials placed before the enquiry officer. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as the penalty, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri M. Vinaya Keerthy for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 Sri K.R. Rajendra for respondent No.1-State as well as learned counsel Sri H.D. Kumar learned counsel appearing for Sri Vekatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Lokayukta, and perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel Sri M. Vinaya Keerthy for the petitioner would submit that the application requesting for Phodi and fixation of boundary of the land is dated 26.12.2013 and the complaint before the Lokayukta is dated 23.06.2014. It is submitted that the petitioner took charge of the post of Tahsildar, Shikaripura, on 13.05.2015, whereas he received notice from respondent No.2 immediately on the next day of taking charge i.e. on 14.05.2015. Further he submits that within one year of taking charge, he completed the phodi work i.e. on 13.05.2016. As such, he submits that there is no negligent act on the part of the petitioner and immediately on taking charge of the post of Tahsildar, Shikaripura, he has initiated action for Phodi. 4.1 Further, learned counsel would submit that as on the date of complaint, the petitioner was not working as Tahsildar, Shikaripura and that the complaint is also not against the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 petitioner. It is his submission that respondent No.2 without examining as to who is responsible for the delay in carrying out Phodi work of the complainant, recommended enquiry against the petitioner and the State has imposed the punishment of withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect. 4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in spite of other works, i.e. Election to the Grama Panchayath and General Election, which had consumed more than 6 months, the petitioner has completed the Phodi work within one year. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that there is no application of mind either by respondent No.1-State or respondent No.2-Lokayukta. Therefore, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the order of penalty. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 supporting the order of the Tribunal, submit that the petitioner has failed to take immediate action on the pending application for Phodi work as such, the State has rightly imposed the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 penalty of withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the view that the impugned order of penalty as well as the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference. The charges made against the petitioner in terms of the Articles of Charge dated 11.07.2017 reads as follows: "CHARGE: That you the DGO named above, while working as Tahsildar, Shikaripura Taluk of Shimoga District, failed to take action on the application filed by Sri Veerabhadrappa of Kalmane Village of Shikaripura Taluk, and though he filed an application on 26.12.2013, by paying requisite fees and requested for carrying phodi work and fixation of boundary of the land owned by him in Sy. No.141 measuring 2.03 acres of Kalmane Village and though approached you on several occasions and requested you to consider his prayer, you have failed to take action on his application and failed to fix the boundaries by ordering phodi work in his lands, thus by your negligent attitude towards redressing the grievance of public, you have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity, negligence and devotion to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 duty and committed an act of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.” 7. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner is that he failed to take immediate action for Phodi work on the complainant's application dated 26.12.2013, thereby committed misconduct. A perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the Delinquent Government Officer has failed to take action on the complaint filed by complainant on 26.12.2013 for carrying Phodi work and fixation of boundary of the land belonging to the complainant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner took charge of the post of Tahsildar, Shikaripura, only on 13.05.2015, whereas the complainant's application for Phodi work is dated 26.12.2013 and the complaint to respondent No.2 is dated 23.06.2014 and as on the date of application for Phodi work or as on the date of complaint to respondent No.2-Lokayukta, the petitioner was not working as Tahsildar, Shikaripura. Those details are forthcoming in the reply to the second show cause notice, which the State failed to take note of while passing the impugned order of penalty. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 7.1 It appears that the petitioner, who took charge of the post of Tahsildar, Shikaripura on 13.05.2015, has completed Phodi work on 13.05.2016 despite work relating to Election to the Grama Panchayath as well as Taluka Panchayath, Census and Legislative Council Election. Be that as it may, respondent No.2, without verifying as to whether the petitioner was functioning as Tahsildar of Shikaripura as on the date of the application for Phodi or on the date of complaint to respondent No.2-Lokayukta, proceeded to recommend for enquiry against the petitioner and the State without verifying as to whether the petitioner was responsible for the delay in considering the application for Phodi work, proceeded to initiate inquiry and ultimately imposed penalty. The order of penalty suffers from total non-application of mind by both respondent Nos.1 and 2. 8. It is settled position of law that this Court would not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence. However, this Court would examine as to whether there is material or evidence to prove the charge and only to appreciate the contention as to whether it is a case of no evidence or whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge. When the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 petitioner was not working as Tahsildar, Shikaripura as on the date of application for Phodi work and the complaint to respondent No.2, it is to be held that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner. 9. The explanation of the petitioner to the second show cause notice would indicate that the application for Phodi work is dated 26.12.2013, whereas the petitioner took charge of the post of Tahsildar, Shikaripura, on 13.05.2015. There is almost one and a half year gap between the date of application for Phodi work and the date of petitioner taking charge as Tahsildar, Shikaripura; and no action is taken against the Tahsildar, who was working earlier to the petitioner at Shikaripura. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the following: Order (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 22.06.2021 in Application No.40/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the order of penalty No.RD 1144 ADE - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15443-DB WP No. 11898 of 2021 2016, dated 26.11.2009, withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect, is quashed. (iii) The respondents are directed to refix the pension of the petitioner and pay all arrears within three months from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16