- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 26935 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI MAHABALESHWARA S/O BALAIAH HOBALIDARA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE, (CC NO. 2214) (UNDER ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT) KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, R/AT PUDUVARI, BAINDUR, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. O.K. ANANTHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAIK V.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESETNED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE WESTERN RANGE, MANGALURU - 560 001 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, AG ALONG WITH SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY AND SRI. A.S. HARISHAM, AGA FOR R1-R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06/09/202 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3832/2020 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N BY WHICH THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER WAS DISMISSED AND THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) An unsuccessful Police Constable before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”) is before this Court, questioning the order dated 06.09.2022 in Application No.3832/2020, rejecting his prayer to quash the order of penalty dated 25.04.2019 (Annexure-K) imposing penalty of compulsory retirement in exercise of power under Section 23 (1)(b)(2) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short “1963 Act”) and to treat the unauthorized absence from 19.04.2014 to 28.05.2015 as leave without pay, in terms of Rule 106(A) of KCSRs. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: A departmental enquiry under Rule 6 of Karnataka Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the petitioner and Articles of Charge dated 10.06.2014 was issued to the petitioner. Charges against the petitioner reads as follows: “zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ:- 1) ²¹Û£À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°ègÀĪÀ NªÀð dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ¥Éưøï PÁ£ï¸ÉÖç¯ï DVgÀĪÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ E£ÉÆߧâ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 ªÀåQÛAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¢:24/01/2014 gÀAzÀÄ ²æÃ. ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀ ¥Àæ¨sÀÄ 54 ªÀµÀð vÀAzÉ; J¸ï. gÁzsÁ PÀȵÀÚ ¥Àæ¨sÀÄ, zÁªÉÆÃzÀgÀ ¤®AiÀÄ, PÉUÁð¯ï £ÁAiÀÄÌ£ÀPÀmÉÖ, PÀÄAzÁ¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ “£ÁªÀÅ ¹.N.r. ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ eÉÊ°£À°ègÀĪÀ ®wÃ¥sï JA¨ÁvÀ¤UÉ eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä 01 ®PÀë (MAzÀÄ ®PÀë) ºÀt, MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ eÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ºÁUÀÆ E§âgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ µÀÆåjnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr” JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄwÛÃj. CzÀPÉÌ ²æÃ. ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀ ¥Àæ¨sÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÀÆ ®wÃ¥sïUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA§AzsÀ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, £Á£ÉÃPÉ eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ°? JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ, ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß F PÉù£À°è ¸ÉÃj¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý ºÉÆÃVgÀÄwÛÃj. ¢.11/02/2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÀAqÀÆègÀÄ ¨Á®aPÀÄÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀjªÁgÀ zÉʪÀUÀ¼À zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ UÉAqÀ ¸ÉêÁ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀ §AzÉÆç¸ïÛ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÉëĸÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ J.J¸ï.L. ªÁ¸À¥Àà £ÁAiÀÄÌgÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÉÆç¸ïÛ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°ègÀĪÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 15:10 UÀAmÉUÉ ZÉPï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀgÉ CzÉà ¢£À ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 02.05 UÀAmÉUÉ ²æÃ. ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀ ¥Àæ¨sÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¥sÉÆãï PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr 01 ®PÀë (MAzÀÄ ®PÀë) ºÀt, MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ eÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀvÀæ gÉr ªÀiÁr¢ÝÃgÁ? JAzÀÄ PÉýgÀÄwÛÃj ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAeÉ 4:30 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÉÆAzÀt £ÀA§gï E®èzÀ PÀ¥ÀÄà §tÚzÀ §eÁeï ¥À®ìgï 150-DTS ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¨ÉÊPï£À°è CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄßzÉÝò¹ ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ£É, ¨ÉêÀ¹ð JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ‘¤ÃªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¢zÀÝgÉ, ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆ®èzÉà ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è’ JAzÀÄ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄwÛÃj. F §UÉÎ ²æÃ. ªÁ¸ÀÄzÉêÀ ¥Àæ¨sÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢:11/02/2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAzÀÆgÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÁUÀ ¨ÉÊAzÀÆgÀÄ oÁuÁ C.PÀæ.29/2014 PÀ®A:384, 504, 506 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 34 ¨sÁ.zÀ.¸ÀA. AiÀÄAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 2) ²¹Û£À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°ègÀĪÀ NªÀð dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ¥Éưøï PÁ£ï¸ÉÖç¯ï DVgÀĪÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤Ãr ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19/02/2014 jAzÀ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁV PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVgÀÄwÛÃj. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 »ÃUÉ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀiÁV M¼ÀUÉÆArzÀÝ®èzÉà wêÀæ ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝjvÀ£À¢AzÀ ªÀwð¹, ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀjUÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¥Éưøï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ°è vÀ¥ÀÄà C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ GAmÁUÀ®Ä PÁgÀtÂÃPÀvÀðgÁV, E¯ÁSÁ WÀ£ÀvÉUÉ PÀÄAzÀÄAmÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀwð¹, C²¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀÄ£ÀðqsÀvÉ ¥ÀæzÀ²Ãð¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¦J¸ïL, ¨ÉÊAzÀÆgÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28/05/2014 gÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 3. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner is that on 24.01.2014 along with another person went to the house of Sri.Vasudev Prabhu and asked him to be ready to give surety to the accused – Lathif who is under Police custody by giving Rs.1,00,000/- cash and RTC in respect of one acre of land along with two Government Servants Sureties. When the said Vasudev Prabhu refused by saying that he has nothing to do with the accused-Lathif, the petitioner is said to have threatened the said Vasudev Prabhu that he would be implicated in the said pending crime. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.07.2014 to the charge and thereafter a detailed enquiry was conducted and reported dated 29.03.2015 was submitted holding the charges proved against the petitioner. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 petitioner was issued with second show-cause notice along with enquiry report and in the second show-cause notice, it was stated that, as the charges against the petitioner are proved, penalty of dismissal from service and to treat the period of absence as leave without pay was proposed. The said show- cause notice was the subject matter of application before the Tribunal in Application No.8870/2018. The Tribunal, by its order dated 12.12.2018 placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED v/s MAHESH DAHIYA reported in (2017)1 SCC 768 set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to issue fresh second show-cause notice without indicating the quantum of punishment with further observation that the petitioner shall not be reinstated till an appropriate decision is taken by the Disciplinary Authority after issuing fresh second show-cause notice. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, a fresh second show-cause notice was issued on 29.03.2019 again indicating the penalty proposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner replied to the second show-cause notice on 08.04.2019 (Annexure-J). The Disciplinary Authority - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 considering the reply submitted to the second show-cause notice, passed order dated 25.04.2019 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement in exercise of power under Section 23(1)(b)(2) of 1963 Act, that was the subject matter of the appeal. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the above application and the Tribunal under impugned order rejected petitioner’s application whereunder the petitioner had questioned the penalty of compulsory retirement. Questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of penalty of compulsory retirement, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri.O.K.Ananthakrishnan for Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General Sri.Shashikiran Shetty along with Sri.I.Tharanath Poojary, learned AGA and Sri.Harisha A.S., learned AGA for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge one and only ground that despite the order of the Tribunal to issue - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 second show-cause notice without indicating the penalty, the Disciplinary Authority i.e., 4th respondent herein, issued second show-cause notice dated 29.03.2019 indicating the penalty as to why penalty under Rule 23(b)I to V of 1963 Act and the period of absence should not be treated as leave without pay. Learned counsel would submit that the second show-cause notice issued on the second occasion is also contrary to the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED referred to supra. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only on the ground of defective issuance of second show- cause notice, prays for quashing the order of penalty and second show-cause notice leaving open all other contentions. 8. Per contra, learned Advocate General Sri.Shashikiran Shetty tried to defend the second show-cause notice by submitting that the same is in accordance with law. Further learned Advocate General would submit that 4th respondent as a Disciplinary Authority issued second show- cause notice and further submits that the allegation against the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 petitioner is very serious which warrants major penalty. Therefore, taking into account the gravity and nature of charge, the Disciplinary Authority indicated the penalty in the second show-cause notice. Further, learned Advocate General would submit that respondent No.4, in her capacity as Disciplinary Authority has taken a decision to issue second show-cause notice and also she has taken the said decision to the best of her understanding. 9. During the course of hearing on 03.06.2026, learned Advocate General Sri.Shashikiran Shetty submitted that an affidavit of respondent No.4 would be filed indicating the circumstances under which second show-cause notice came to be issued and to provide one opportunity to respondent No.4 who was the Disciplinary Authority as on the date of issuance of second show-cause, we directed listing of the matter to 08.06.2026. 10. Respondent No.4 filed an affidavit dated 05.06.2026. Paragraphs 5, 7, 12, and 13 of the said affidavit reads as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 “5. I respectfully state that in compliance with the directions of Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, a fresh Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 27.03.2019, removing the erroneous mention of the intended imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service as carried in the original Show Cause Notice issued by the then Superintendent of Police, Udupi on 28.05.20215. Instead, the fresh Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2019 only indicated that in view of the charges being found proven as per the enquiry report and documents placed on file, any punishment mentioned in Rule 23(b) I to V would be considered which are attracted when disciplinary enquiry is being carried out under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965, titled “Procedure for imposing major penalties”. 7. I respectfully state that while dealing with the disciplinary proceedings concerning the Petitioner, I genuinely acted in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. It is pertinent to state that the orders of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 12.12.2018 were specifically referred to an taken note of both in the second show cause notice dated 27.03.2019 as well as in the final order passed afresh on 25.04.2019. These records themselves demonstrate that I had no intention whatsoever to ignore or circumvent the directions of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. 12. I respectfully state that in the instant case all actions were undertaken in an administrative capacity as Disciplinary Authority with the bonafide intention to discharge official duties in the interests of serving the ends of justice by complying with the directions given by the Hon’ble karnataka State Administrative Tribunal to the best of my understanding. If any lacunae is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 found in these actions, I tender my sincere unconditional apology to this Hon’ble Court and pray that I may be pardoned. 13. I state that I have highest respect and regards for the Orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. I have never willfully disobeyed any of the Orders passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. My unconditional apology may kindly be accepted.” 11. At this stage of dictation on 08.06.2026, learned Additional Government Advocate prayed for a day's time to file one more affidavit to explain further. Accordingly, the above petition was adjourned to today i.e., 09.06.2026. On 09.06.2026, respondent No.4-Smt.Nisha James, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), filed one more affidavit. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of which, reads as follows: "3. I respectfully state that, while issuing 2nd Show Cause Notice I have inadvertently expressed prima facie opinion regarding in the proposed punishment. The said mistake occurred due to oversight. I never intended, either directly or indirectly, to disobey or disregard the directions of the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and every action undertaken while officiating in the capacity as Disciplinary Authority has been with the bonafide intention to carry out the instructions given by the Hon'ble Court diligently. Hence, I request the Hon'ble Court to kindly consider the mistake as inadvertent and bonfide. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 4. I state that I have highest respect and regards for the Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. I have never wilfully disobeyed any of the Orders passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Hence I seek leave of the Hon'ble Court to withdraw my affidavit dated 05/06/2026 and I tender my unconditional apology for the said bonafide mistake. Hence my unconditional apology may kindly be accepted in the interest of justice." 12. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following point would arise for consideration: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of penalty as well as impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference?" The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: 13. As noted above, on the first occasion, second show cause notice was issued on 30.04.2015 (Annexure-'D'), wherein in the show cause notice itself it was proposed to impose penalty of dismissal from service and to treat the period of absence as leave without pay. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 14. The said second show cause notice was the subject matter of Application No.8870/2018 before the Tribunal at Bengaluru, and the Tribunal appreciating the contention of the petitioner herein that the authorities could not have issued second show cause notice indicating the proposed penalty, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED (supra), set-aside the second show cause notice by passing the following order: "ORDER (i) Application is allowed in its entirety. (il) The order of penalty of compulsory retirement dated 28.05.2015 at Annexure-A6 passed by the disciplinary authority, order dated 01.12.2015 at Annexure-A8 of the appellate authority and the order dated 12.01.2017 at Annexure-A10 of the reviewing authority stand quashed and the matter is remitted to the Superintendent of Police, Udupi, to pass appropriate order after giving fresh second show cause notice without indicating the quantum of punishment. (iii) It is made clear that the applicant shall not be reinstated till an appropriate decision is taken by the disciplinary authority after issuing fresh i second show cause notice. (iv) It is also made clear that the applicant will continue to get the pension in view of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 compulsory retirement till a final order is passed by the disciplinary authority. (v) This excercise shall be done within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 15. In pursuance of the above order, 4th respondent- disciplinary authority was required to issue second show cause notice without indicating or proposing any punishment enclosing copy of the enquiry report. However, the 4th respondent-disciplinary authority disregarding the order of the Tribunal and in total non-application of mind, issued second show cause notice dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure-'H') enclosing the enquiry report calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply, if any, proposing punishment under Section 23(1)(b)(2) of the 1963 Act, as well as to treat the absence as leave without pay. The portion of second show cause notice, reads as follows: "ಇಾಾ ಾರಾ ಾಾದ ಐ, ಬಾವರ ವೃತರವರು ಮ ೕನ ಆ!ೋಪಗಳ ಬ'ೆ( ಯ*ಾನು+ಾರ ಇಾಾ ಾರೆ ನ,ೆರು-ಾ!ೆ ಾಗೂ ಾರೆ ಮು ಾಯ'ೊಂಡ ಬ0ಕ ಾರೆಯ ಕುತು ಸ3ದ ಅಂ5ಮ ವರ6ಯ3 ಅ.7ೕ.ಅ.ರವರ ೕನ ಆ!ೋಪಗಳ8 ಇಾಾ ಾರೆ9ಂದ ಸಂಶಾ5ೕತ;ಾ< +ಾ=ೕ-ಾ<ರುತ;ೆ. ಎಂಬ ಣ@ಯ ೆA ಬಂ6ರು-ಾ!ೆ. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 Bಾನು ಇಾಾ ಾರಾ ಕಡತದ3ನ Cಾಖಾ5ಗಳನುE ಮತು ಇ.. ಅ ಾಯವರ ಅಂ5ಮ ವರ6ಯನುE ಕೂಲಂಕುಷ;ಾ< ಪHೕಲCೆIೕBೆ. ಮ ೕನ CೋJಾ!ೋಪಗಳ8 +ಾ=ೕ-ಾ<ರುವCಾ< 50ರುವ ಇಾಾ ಾರಾ ಾಯವರ ಣ@ಯ ೆA ಸಹಮತ ವLಕಪM ಮನುE ತNತಸO!ೆಂದು -ಾ-ಾAಕ;ಾ< ಪಗPದುI, ಮ ರುದQ M.. ಯಮ ಕಲಂ 23(=)ರ I ಂದ V ರ3  ರುವ ಾವRCಾದರೂ ಒಂದು HTೆಯನುE ಾಗೂ ೕವR ಕತ@ವLದ3 ಅನ ಕೃತ;ಾ< 'ೈರು ಾಜ!ಾದ 6Bಾಂಕ:19/02/2014 ಂದ ಈ Hಸು ಪಕರಣದ3 ಅಂ5ಮ ಆCೇಶ Xಾಾಗುವವ!ೆ<ನ ಅವ ಯನುE ;ೇತನ ರYತ ರXೆ ಎಂಬುCಾ< ಪಗPಸಲು ಉCೆIೕHರು-ೇBೆ.. ಆದುದಂದ Hೕಮ5 [ಾ Xೇ\], ಐ..ಎ^, 7ೕ^ ಅ ೕ_ಕರು, ಉಡು `ೆ3, ಉಡು ಾಗೂ Hಸು aಾ ಾಾದ Bಾನು ಈ ಬ'ೆ( ಮ ಸಮXಾ9bಯನುE ಈ ಾರಣ ೇಳ8ವ ಸೂಚBಾ ಪತ ತಲುದ 07 6ನಗdೆeಳ'ಾ< fತ ರೂಪದ3 Bೇರ;ಾ< ನನ'ೆ ಸ3ಸತಕAದುI. ಒಂದು ;ೇdೆ ಗ ತ ಅವ gಳ'ೆ hಂದ ಾವRCೇ fತ ಸಮXಾ9bಯು ತಲುಪCೇ ಇದI3 ೕಲAಂಡ ಆ!ೋಪಗಳ ಬ'ೆ( ಮ ಾವRCೇ ಸಮXಾ9bಯು ಇರುವR6ಲ3;ೆಂದು ಾಗೂ ೕವR ಮ ರುದQ ೊರMರುವ ಆ!ೋಪಗಳನುE ಒN ೊಂMರು5ೕ ಎಂಬುCಾ< ಪಗP, ಏಕಪjೕಯ;ಾ< ಅಂ5ಮ ಆCೇಶ ೊರMಸಾಗುವRದು. ಇಾಾ ಾರಾ ವರ6ಯ ಪ5ಯನುE ಇದ!ೊಂ6'ೆ ಲಗ5Cೆ." 16. The above second show cause notice is contrary to the direction issued by the Tribunal dated 12.12.2018 in Application No.8870/2018 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED (supra) was considering identical fact situation, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 wherein the second show cause notice was issued indicating proposed punishment even before receiving the comment from the delinquent official on the enquiry report. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has recorded its finding at paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 33, which reads as follows: "31. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have heavily relied on the fact that before forwarding the copy of the report by the letter dated 2-4-2008 the disciplinary authority- cum-whole-time members have already formed an opinion on 25-2-2008 to punish the writ petitioner with major penalty which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. We are of the view that before making opinion with regard to punishment which is to be imposed on a delinquent, the delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit the representation/reply on the enquiry report which finds a charge proved against the delinquent. The opinion formed by the disciplinary authority- cum-whole-time members on 25-2-2008 was formed without there being benefit of comments of the writ petitioner on the enquiry report. The writ petitioner in his representation to the enquiry report is entitled to point out any defect in the procedure, a defect of substantial nature in appreciation of evidence, any misleading of evidence both oral or documentary. In his representation any inputs and explanation given by the delinquent are also entitled to be considered by the disciplinary authority before it embarks with further proceedings as per statutory rules. We are, thus, of the view that there was violation of principle of natural justice at the level of disciplinary authority when opinion was formed to punish the writ petitioner with dismissal without forwarding the enquiry report to the delinquent and - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 before obtaining his comments on the enquiry report. We are, thus, of the view that the order of the High Court setting aside the punishment order as well as the appellate order has to be maintained. 32. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that present is the case where the High Court while quashing the punishment order as well as appellate order ought to have permitted the disciplinary authority to have proceeded with the inquiry from the stage in which fault was noticed i.e. the stage under Rule 15 of the Rules. We are conscious that sufficient time has elapsed during the pendency of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench and before this Court, however, in view of the interim order passed by this Court dated 31-8-2015 [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, SLP (C) CC No. 15656 of 2015, order dated 31-8-2015 (SC), wherein it was directed:“Delay condoned. Issue notice. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of operation of the impugned order dated 9-4-2015 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA No. 340 of 2012 (H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 818). Mr Aditya Singh, learned counsel accepts notice and seeks some time to file reply. List the matter immediately after the pleadings are complete.”] no further steps have been taken regarding implementation of the order of the High Court. The ends of justice would be served in disposing of this appeal by fixing a time-frame for completing the proceeding from the stage of Rule 15. 33. We having found that the principles of natural justice have been violated after submission of the enquiry report dated 29-12-2007. All proceedings taken by the disciplinary authority after 29-12-2007 have to be set aside and the disciplinary authority is to be directed to forward the copy of the enquiry report in accordance with - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 Rule 15(2) of the 1965 Rules and further proceedings, if any, are to be taken thereafter." 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision has observed that, mentioning proposed penalty even before receiving the comments from the delinquent official would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In other words, proposing punishment in the second show cause notice even before obtaining comment from the delinquent would amount to pre-determining the penalty or it would amount to imposing penalty without hearing the delinquent official on the enquiry report. In the instant case, 4th respondent-disciplinary authority ought to have been more diligent, when there was a specific direction by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious and which are proved in the enquiry. This type of mistake or negligence ought to be avoided and this type of mistake or negligence could be avoided by application of mind, which we found absent in the present proceedings. 18. The 4th respondent-Smt.Nisha James, IPS, has filed two affidavits before the Court, relevant portion of which, are extracted above. The officer has stated that every action taken - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 while officiating in the capacity as the disciplinary authority has been made with a bonafide intention and on the understanding of the Tribunal order. However, we do not intend to go into the question of bonafide intention of 4th respondent, however, the statement that action is with the understanding of the order cannot be accepted or appreciated. The order of the Tribunal is very clear and unambiguous. The Tribunal has made it clear that the second show cause notice shall be issued afresh without indicating the quantum of punishment. When such clear direction is issued by the Tribunal, it is not open for the 4th respondent to state that in her understanding she has issued second show cause notice. For the mistake committed by the 4th respondent, the impugned order of penalty is liable to be set-aside. Consequently, the Tribunal order is also to be set- aside. The mistake committed by the 4th respondent could have been avoided if 4th respondent were to be much more vigilant and applied her mind in proper perspective. For the mistake committed by the 4th respondent, we propose to impose costs of Rs.25,000/- on the respondents-State, which shall be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, within two weeks from today. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 19. For the reasons recorded above, we pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 06.09.2022 in Application No.3832/2020 passed by the Tribunal is set-aside. Consequently, the impugned order of penalty bearing No.Sibbandi(3)/DE/03/UD/2019 dated 25.04.2019 as well as the Appellate Authority order bearing No.SIBBANDI- 2/APPEAL/06/WZ/2015 dated 03.12.2015 are quashed. Consequent direction is issued to the 4th respondent- disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of lacuna i.e., from the stage of issuance of second show cause notice without indicating the penalty within two weeks' from the date of uploading this order on the website of the High Court. Two weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to submit his reply to the second show cause notice. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27423-DB WP No. 26935 of 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to furnish the proper address where the petitioner is residing at present to the 4th respondent as well as to the learned Additional Government Advocate within two days from today. Thereafter, within two weeks, 4th respondent shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner shall not be reinstated till an appropriate order is passed, as directed above by the disciplinary authority. It is also made clear that the consequential benefit to the petitioner would depend on the order to be passed by the disciplinary authority. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1