- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH 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. 13267 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: VASANTHA K. T S/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER V.I.N.L, YETHINAHOLLE PROJECT CIRCLE TUMKUR (NOW UNDER THE ORDER OF REVERSION) R/A MATAPITRU NILAYA 2ND CROSS, DEVARAJ URS MAIN ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM, TUMKUR-572 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 III AND IV FLOOR, SURFACE WATER DATA CENTRE BUILDING, ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 009 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE) CAUVERY BHAVAN COMPLEX, 4TH STAGE, GOKULAM MYSORE-570 020 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE- A, PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.6195/2024 DATED 19/02/2025 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE. 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 RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Application No.6195/2024 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for brevity, "the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was serving as an Office Superintendent in the Office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation (South Zone), Mysuru. While so serving, respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice dated 04.07.2023 under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, “the CCA Rules”), calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed disciplinary action. The show-cause notice was accompanied by the following Article of Charge: : "The petitioner while working in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation (South Zone), Mysore, from 08.11.2021 was sent obscene messages through Whatsapp though his mobile No.9900193332 to the mobile phone No.7022948548 of Smt.Bhagyashree Sannadi, First - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 Division Assistant working in the same office on 28.11.2022 at 3:26 a.m., 3:31 a.m., 7:40 a.m. 7:55 am and 11:45 a.m. resulted in disturbing her privacy thereby he has committed grave misconduct in unbecoming the government servant by violating the conduct Rules.” 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered, respondent No.3 appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct a departmental enquiry into the charges. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, after recording the evidence of the complainant and considering the material placed on record by the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to respondent No.3 - Neeravari Nigama. 4. On receipt of the enquiry report, a second show-cause notice dated 29.05.2024 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his representation against the findings recorded therein. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.06.2024, once again denying the charges. Thereafter, respondent No.4, on 13.11.2024, by order passed under Rule 8(v) of the CCA Rules, imposed the following penalty: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 (i) Reverting the petitioner from the cadre of Office Superintendent to the cadre of First Division Assistant; (ii) Reducing the basic pay of the petitioner to the minimum stage in the cadre of First Division Assistant; (iii) Considering the seniority of the petitioner at the bottom in the cadre of FDA with effect from the date of the order of penalty. 5. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner filed Application No.6195 of 2024 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings, the records of the departmental enquiry and the material placed on record, dismissed the application and affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The correctness and legality of the said order constitute the lis before this Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Satisha D.J for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. V.Shiva Reddy for the respondents. 8. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the disciplinary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 proceedings stand vitiated on account of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the Enquiry Officer proceeded to record findings against the petitioner without affording him an adequate and effective opportunity to defend himself and to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the charges levelled against him. 9. Learned counsel further contended that neither the documents relied upon in the charge memorandum were formally exhibited, nor were the witnesses cited therein examined during the course of the enquiry. According to him, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are founded substantially upon the answers elicited by the Presenting Officer from the petitioner and the complainant, rather than on legally admissible evidence adduced in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It was, therefore, submitted that the enquiry is vitiated for failure to adhere to the procedure contemplated under law. 10. He further contended that the Articles of Charge were not framed in conformity with Rule 23 of the CCA Rules. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry report is in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 contravention of the mandate contained in Rule 23(1)(a) to (d) of the CCA Rules and, therefore, is not sustainable in law. 11. Further, he contended that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the charges and is unsupported by any cogent evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, these aspects have neither been properly appreciated nor adequately considered by the Tribunal while dismissing the application. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. 12. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, supporting the impugned order, contended that the Tribunal, upon careful and comprehensive consideration of the material available on record, has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 13. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence adduced during the disciplinary proceedings, including the testimony of the complainant and the material placed on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 record by the Presenting Officer. It was further contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and stand duly established in the enquiry. 14. He further contended that the petitioner is not a first-time delinquent and that allegations of similar nature had earlier surfaced during his tenure at Turuvekere. Having regard to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, according to the learned Additional Government Advocate, has imposed a proportionate and appropriate penalty. It was, therefore, submitted that no ground is made out for interference with either the order of punishment or the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and upon perusal of the records, the following point arises for our consideration: Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner by affirming the imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 16. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sent obscene photographs and messages to the complainant, who was working as his subordinate in the office. During the course of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner is stated to have admitted that the said photographs and messages were transmitted from his mobile phone. His explanation was that, while under the influence of alcohol, he had inadvertently sent the same to the complainant under the mistaken belief that the messages were being sent to his wife, as the mobile numbers of the complainant and his wife being substantially similar. 17. However, before the Tribunal, the petitioner sought to resile from the said stand and contended that the aforesaid admission had been obtained by the Enquiry Officer under coercion. Significantly, no material whatsoever has been placed on record to substantiate the said allegation. The petitioner has neither produced any contemporaneous document nor pointed to any complaint lodged before the Competent Authority alleging coercion or undue influence on the part of the Enquiry Officer. In the absence of any such material, the plea that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 admission was forcibly extracted appears to be a mere afterthought and does not merit acceptance. 18. The further contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Articles of Charge are not in conformity with Rule 23(1) of the CCA Rules, and that the enquiry report stands vitiated on account of non-compliance with the said provision, does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the records would indicate that the charge levelled against the petitioner was duly enquired into on the basis of the evidence adduced during the disciplinary proceedings, including the testimony of the complainant and the material placed on record by the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer has paid attention to the charges, the evidence led in support thereof and the defence put forth by the petitioner before arriving at his findings. 19. Insofar as the quantum of punishment is concerned, this Court has carefully perused the enquiry report and the material forming part of the disciplinary proceedings. The record discloses that the petitioner had admitted to having transmitted obscene photographs and messages from his mobile phone to the complainant, who was his subordinate officer. The material on record further reveals that such messages were sent over a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 considerable period of time during the relevant hours, apart from other text communications exchanged by the petitioner. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be either trivial or technical in nature. 20. That apart, the Disciplinary Authority has taken note of the petitioner's antecedents and his involvement in similar misconduct during his earlier posting at Turuvekere. The record further indicates that the petitioner had acknowledged his conduct in the said incident as well. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the misconduct established in the enquiry, we are of the considered view that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the impugned penalty. 21. It is well settled that judicial review in matters arising out of departmental proceedings is confined to the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, interference by the writ court is unwarranted. In the case on hand, no such ground is made out. 22. Consequently, we find no infirmity either in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority or in the order of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27358-DB WP No. 13267 of 2026 Tribunal affirming the same. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in dismissing the Application preferred by the petitioner. The point framed for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11