- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 5552 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAVIRAJ H S/O SRI SANJEEVA SHEREGAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KARJE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, R/AT MEL KARJE, NEAR KARJE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARJE BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 215. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1) Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2023 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.4370/2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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) Petitioner – a Panchayat Development Officer (for short ‘PDO’) is before this Court questioning the order dated 19.10.2023 in Application No.4370/2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal), whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to the order of penalty dated 23.02.2022 withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect, is rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that: The first respondent under Government Order dated 09.06.2017 entrusted the enquiry against petitioner under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short “1957 Rules”) to the second respondent. In terms of the Entrustment Order, the second respondent issued Articles of Charge dated 16.08.2017. The alleged charge against the petitioner reads as follows: “²æêÀÄw gÁzsÀ PÉ. vÉAqÀÆ®Ìgï EªÀgÀÄ GqÀĦ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÁPÀð¼À vÁ®ÆèQ£À PËqÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ gÀAUÀ£À¥À°Ì JA§ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀªÉÃð £ÀA§gï 207 gÀ°è PÉÆý ¥sÁgÀA G¢ÝªÉÄ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖ ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÉÆý ¥sÁgÀA EgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀ PÀlÖ®Ä ²æêÀÄw gÁzsÀ vÉAqÀÆ®ÌgïgÀªÀgÀÄ PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀUÉUÁV Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ°è PÉÆý ¥sÁgÀA £ÀqɸÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½¸ÀzÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. F PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÀÆ, D¥Á¢vÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ²æêÀÄw gÁzsÀ vÉAqÀÆ®Ìgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀUÉ PÉÆÃj ¸À°è¹zÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»vÀAiÀÄ ªÉÄïÉAiÉÄà ¸ÀzÀj ²æêÀÄw gÁzsÀ vÉAqÀÆ®Ìgï gÀªÀjUÉ PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀUÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖ ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ®èzÉ, D¥Á¢vÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¸ÀÄgÉÃR ¸ÀAfêÀ vÉAqÀÆ®ÌgïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj PÉÆý ¥sÁgÀA£À PÀlÖqÀ¢AzÀ 51.00 «ÄÃ., CAvÀgÀzÀ°è EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ 100.00 «ÄÃ., CAvÀgÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåzÀ PÀlÖqÀ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄwÛÃj. EzÀ®èzÉÃ, ²æêÀÄw gÁzsÀ PÉ. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 vÉAqÀÆ®ÌgïgÀªÀgÀÄ «zÀåZÀÒQÛ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ CfðAiÀÄ®Æè ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt D¥Á¢vÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉêÀPÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀå¥Á®£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Àj¥ÀÆtð ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ, ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð PÀvÀðªÀå ¤µÉ×AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀzÉ ¸ÀéAvÀ ¯Á¨sÀPÁÌV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÉêÀPÀjUÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, D¥Á¢vÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉêÁ (£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1966gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ (3)(1) £Éà ¤§AzsÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉ J¸ÀV¢ÝÃj.” The charge against the petitioner is that while he was working as Panchayat Development Officer (for short ‘PDO’) at Bailuru Grama Panchayat, Bailuru Post, Karkala District, petitioner granted Building License/permission for poultry farm on false information without considering objection filed by complainant and it is also alleged that the petitioner submitted false information that though one Smt. Surekha Sanjeev Tendulkar’s house was situated within 51 meters from the poultry farm, he stated that no building exists within 100 meter radius. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 The enquiry officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted report dated 30.09.2021 holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. The Upa Lokayukta under recommendation dated 30.09.2021 forwarded the enquiry report to the first respondent – State Government. The first respondent issued second show cause notice dated 08.11.2021 enclosing enquiry report. Petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 23.11.2021. The first respondent – Disciplinary Authority on examination of the entire enquiry material on record, imposed penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect in exercise of its power under Section 8(iii) of 1957 Rules. Questioning the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal under impugned order rejected petitioner’s challenge to the order of penalty holding that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is based on material and further held that the penalty imposed is reasonable when - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 compared to nature and gravity of the proved charge. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as the penalty order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel Sri. Vijaya Kumar would submit that the second respondent committed an error in entertaining the complaint as the complainant had alternate remedy. As such, the complaint itself was not maintainable under Section 8(1) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short “1984 Act”). Learned counsel would submit that if the Poultry License was granted contrary to the provisions, then, it was an appealable order. The complainant having failed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, he could not have complained before the second respondent. Further, learned counsel would submit that there is no material whatsoever to prove the charge and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 as it is a case of no evidence, the Tribunal ought to have interfered with the impugned order of penalty. Further, it is submitted that the charge itself is vague inasmuchas, there is no rule regarding grant of license for construction of poultry farm in the residential area. Further, it is submitted that license was not sought for construction of building for poultry farm. However, it is for ‘chicken shed’ therefore, it would not amount to granting license to poultry farm. Further, learned counsel would submit that the second respondent failed to take into consideration the spot inspection report of the Taluka Health Officer which indicated that the several areas surrounding the Chicken shed are well maintained. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand would submit that the materials available on record are sufficient to prove the charge and accordingly for the proved misconduct, appropriate punishment is imposed. Further, learned AGA would submit that there are sufficient - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 evidence on record and as such, the enquiry officer has rightly come to the conclusion that charges are proved. Learned AGA would submit that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner would not fall under Section 8(1) of 1984 Act and it is not a grievance of the person who had sought license. However, it is complaint against the petitioner for mis-conducting himself by furnishing false report. Hence, he submits that enquiry would be maintainable and accordingly enquiry was conducted. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as impugned order of penalty dated 23.02.2022. 7. The charge against the petitioner which is extracted above in sum and substance is that, the petitioner without taking note of the objections filed by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 residents, considered the application submitted by one Smt. Radha Tendulkar for building license and further the petitioner recorded that there is no residential building within 100 meters from the poultry farm and complainant’s residential building is not situated within 51 meters radius. To prove the charge, the Disciplinary Authority examined PW1 – complainant Kumari Veena S Tendulkar and Investigating Officer – Sri Nagesh Shetty as PW2, apart from marking Exhibits P1 to P22. Ex.P5 is complainant’s objection dated 21.10.2011 and Ex.P7 is representation given by complainant to Deputy Commissioner dated 22.05.2013. Ex.P14 is the report submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D9. The enquiry report would indicate that one Smt. Radha K Tendulkar submitted application to the Bailuru Mandala Panchayat seeking for construction of building for poultry farm and objections to that had been received by the petitioner. Though within 51 meters of the place where the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 permission for poultry farm was sought, the complainant’s residential house was situated, Contrary to the same, the petitioner is said to have submitted report stating that within 100 meters from the place where the permission for poultry farm is sought, there is no residential building. In the cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted that from the building in question i.e., poultry farm, the complainant’s house is situated within 51 meters. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a case of no evidence and on the other hand, there are sufficient materials to prove the charge. 8. It is settled position of law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into the sufficiency of the evidence and it will only find out whether the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge. It is also to be noted that in a departmental proceedings strict rule of evidence would not be applicable and charges could be proved only on the principles of preponderance and probabilities. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that under Section 8(1) of the 1984 Act, the second respondent could not have entertained complaint. The complaint is with regard to misconduct of the petitioner and it is not with regard to the grievance of the complainant or the person who had applied for license. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has failed to consider the objections submitted while granting license and for submitting false information that there is no residential building within 100 meters of the building in question i.e., poultry farm. In the facts and circumstances, Section 8(1) of the 1984 Act would not attract. 10. The Tribunal on consideration of each and every contention raised by the petitioner, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of penalty and further observed that withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect is reasonable, proper and proportionate to the gravity and nature of the charge. Thus, we do not - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13351-DB WP No. 5552 of 2025 find any irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal and we are also of the opinion that the penalty imposed is proportionate to the nature and gravity of the charge alleged against the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57