- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15896 WP No. 14450 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 14450 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DR V. M. PUTTARAJU, S/O SRI. M. MUDALAGIRI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT IN RADIOLOGY (X-RAY DIVISION) (UNDER ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT) RA/T #270, 5TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN ROAD, R. M. V. EXTENSION, BENGALURU – 560 080 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATYANARAYANA P. HOGADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESEDNTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BNENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE SANJAY GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TRAUMA AND ORTHOPEDICS, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA EAST BENGALURU – 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 3. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SANJAY GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TRAUMA AND ORTHOPEDICS/APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA EAST BENGALURU – 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15896 WP No. 14450 of 2024 4. THE BOARD OF APPOINTMENT SANJAY GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TRAUMA AND ORTHOPEDICS, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA EAST BENGALURU – 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 5. THE DIRECTOR SANJAY GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TRAUMA AND ORTHOPEDICS BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA EAST BENGALURU – 560 011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PREETHAM JUDE CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 ) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. SIBBANDI(1)EV/118/2013-14 DATED 07/04/2014 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4, PROCEEDINGS DATED 26/02/2024 (ANNEXURE-J) CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN SO FOR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. SIBBANDI(1)/WRIT APPEAL/118/2023-24 DATED 02/03/2024 (ANNEXURE-K) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15896 WP No. 14450 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records and issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order bearing No. Sibbandi(1)EV/118/2013-14 dated: 07.04.2014 (Annexure-D) passed by the Respondent No.5 with the approval of the Respondent No.4, proceedings dated: 26.02.2024 (Annexure-J) conducted by the Respondent No.3 in so for as the petitioner is concerned and endorsement bearing No.Sibbandi(1)/Writ Appeal/118/2023-24 dated: 02.03.2024 (Annexure-K) issued by the Respondent No.2. (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits to the Petitioner flowing from quashing of the said orders at Annexure-D, j and K respectively. (iii) Pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 07.04.2014, the respondent – Disciplinary Authority of respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15896 WP No. 14450 of 2024 Nos.2 to 5 passed an order on compulsory retirement against the petitioner, who challenged the same vide Appeal dated 10.08.2020 before respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority. Since the said appeal was not being taken up for consideration, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.3014/2023, which was disposed of by this Court directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said final order dated 14.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3014/2023 reads as under: “Sri. B Raghu Prakash Babu, learned counsel is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks for respondents 2 to 4. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In that view of the matter, Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.3 herein is directed to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and result of the same be made known to the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15896 WP No. 14450 of 2024 With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.” 4. In pursuance of the same, instead of proceeding to dispose of the appeal, respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority proceeded to constitute a Sub-Committee for the purpose of verifying the allegations made against the petitioner, which is clearly contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Accident Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Cadre & Recruitment, Conditions of Services & Miscellaneous Provision Rules, 1989 (for short “the said Rules of 1989”). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 – the Appellate Authority was not entitled to form/constitute a Sub-Committee by delegating its powers to the said Sub-Committee and act upon the report submitted by the Sub- Committee by passing the impugned order, which is illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 would support the impugned order and submits that so long as respondent No.3 had been obligated in disposing of the appeal, mere constitution of the Sub-Committee would not render the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15896 WP No. 14450 of 2024 impugned order illegal and the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. Before adverting to rival submissions, it is necessary to extract Rules 7 and 8 of the said Rules of 1989, which read as under: “7.0 If as a result of the enquiry the charge framed against a member of the staff if proved, the Director in the case of those appointed by him and the Board of Appointment in the case of any member of the staff, may at their discretion, inflict any of the penalties enunciated under Rule 2.0. 7.1 A member of the staff aggrieved by any order imposing penalty passed by the Director against him shall be entitled to prefer an appeal to the appropriate authority against the order and there shall be no further appeal on the decision of the Appellate Authority. 7.2 No appeal under these rules shall be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of three months from the date on which the appellant received a copy of the order appealed against. Provided that the Appellate Authority any entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15896 WP No. 14450 of 2024 8. In the case of an appeal against an order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority shall consider: a) Whether the procedure prescribed in the preceding rules has been complied with, and, if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. b) Whether the findings are justified, c) Whether the penalty imposed in excessive, adequate or inadequate; and pass orders, (i) Setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty, or (ii) Remitting the case to the Disciplinary Authority or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Provided that the Appellate Authority shall not impose any enhanced penalty unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make, against such enhanced penalty.” 8. As can be seen from Rules 7 and 8 of the said Rule 1989, governing respondent Nos.2 to 5, there is a duty cast upon respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits and in the absence of any provisions which empowers/enables/authorizes respondent No.3-Appellate Authority to constitute Sub-Committee to verify the veracity of the allegations - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15896 WP No. 14450 of 2024 made against the petitioner, the very act of respondent No.3 in constituting a Sub-Committee, on the basis of whose report the impugned order was passed by respondent No.3 is clearly illegal and arbitrary warranting interference b this Court in the present petition. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2024 conducted by respondent No.3 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh and dispose of the appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83