- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 9262 OF 2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: R. NARAYANASWAMY DEAD BY LRS. BY HIS WIFE SMT.GAYATHRI W/O LATE R.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED 59 YEARS, NO.27, 1ST 'A' CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT, NEAR ATTUR MAIN ROAD, ANANTHAPURA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MEMBER SECRETARY CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVT. OF INDIA, CSB COMPLEX, BMT LAYOUT, MADIWALA, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-5600678. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVT. OF INDIA, CSB COMPLEX, BMT LAYOUT, MADIWALA, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-5600678. 3. UNION OF INIDA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVT. OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H., CGSC) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/02/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT, BANGALORE BENCH, IN OA NO.170/00018/2021 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ON PERUSAL QUASH THE SAME AND B) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR ISSUE ANY DIRECTION THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner aggrieved by order dated 01.02.2023 passed in O.A.No.170/00018/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, "the Tribunal") rejecting his prayer to quash endorsement dated 04.09.2020 to consider his case for promotion, is before this Court in this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Senior Field Assistant and has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2018. It is not in dispute that in December, 2001, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner which culminated in his compulsory retirement by order dated 07.02.2003. The said penalty was the subject matter in W.P.No.46579/2003. The learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 05.01.2007 allowed the application and quashed the order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 penalty, against which, respondents filed writ appeal in W.A.No.240/2007 and the said appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 09.03.2009 reserving liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of enquiry report. Subsequently, de novo enquiry was initiated in the year 2010 which was culminated again in passing the order of compulsory retirement, which was the subject matter of the appeal, wherein the order of penalty of dismissal was modified with punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages by order dated 19.08.2015. The said punishment was operating till the petitioner's retirement on 31.08.2018. In the meanwhile, petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.170/01386/2018 seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant and the said O.A. was disposed of by order dated 25.02.2020, wherein the following order was passed: "7. We therefore, allow the applicant to represent on similar lines as made out by the writ petitioners cited supra and the respondents, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for giving him the notional promotion with effect from the earliest date possible. This they shall do so within a period of three (3) months from the date of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 issue of this order. The OA is allowed to this limited extent as above. No costs." 3. The Tribunal permitted the petitioner to file a representation and respondents were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders for giving him notional promotion with effect from earlier capacity and considering his representation, impugned endorsement dated 04.09.2020 (Anexure-A1) was issued by the respondents rejecting his request for promotion holding that the petitioner was under cloud from 2001 to 2018. Questioning the said endorsement the petitioner was before the Tribunal and under the impugned order dated 01.02.2023, the Tribunal rejected his application upholding the contention of the respondents. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sampangi Ramaiah, for petitioner and the learned CGSC Sri.Jayakara Shetty H., for respondents and perused the entire petition papers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is a positive direction from the Tribunal dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 25.02.2020 in O.A.No.170/01386/2018 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders for giving him notional promotion, the respondents could not have rejected the request of the petitioner for promotion. Learned counsel would further submit that when the order of penalty is set aside by the Appellate Authority, petitioner would have become entitled for promotion. Further learned counsel submits that in the year 2001 Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the case of the petitioner was considered and was kept in sealed cover. When the sealed cover was opened, it was noticed that, the case of the petitioner was rejected for promotion solely based on the adverse entries which was not communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, he would become eligible for promotion in the year 2005 itself. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned CGSC Sri.Jayakara Shetty, for respondents would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that petitioner was under cloud from 2001 to 2018 till his retirement, as such, the petitioner would not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 become eligible for promotion. However, learned counsel would submit that the case of the petitioner was not cleared by vigilance side also for consideration of his case for promotion. Further it is submitted that when enquiry is pending, consideration of promotion would depend on the outcome of such enquiry. In the instance case, he submits that initially enquiry was pending against the petitioner and subsequently, he suffered penalty which continued till his retirement, i.e., till 2018. As such, respondents are justified in denying promotion to the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. It is not in dispute that, the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge memo on 25.09.2001 and he was imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement on 07.02.2003 which was the subject matter of the W.P.No.46579/2003 as well as in W.A.No.240/2007. Though the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of compulsory retirement, in appeal filed by the respondents, liberty was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 reserved to the respondents to pass fresh orders in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, de novo enquiry was initiated in the year 2010 which was culminated in modification of penalty of dismissal by imposing punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages. The said punishment was continued till his retirement on 31.08.2018. 9. A Government Servant against whom enquiry is initiated by issuance of charge memo or who suffers punishment would not be entitled for promotion till the completion of enquiry or till the completion of period of penalty. In the instant case, enquiry and penalty against the petitioner continued till his retirement from the year of initiation i.e., 2001. Therefore, no fault could be found with the action of the respondents in denying the promotion to the petitioner. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a positive direction by the Tribunal under order dated 25.02.2023 in O.A.No.170/01386/2018 cannot be accepted, for the reason that the Tribunal in fact had permitted the petitioner to give representation and there was a consequent direction to consider the said representation for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32559-DB WP No. 9262 of 2023 giving the petitioner notional promotion and consideration would mean that consideration of case of the petitioner in accordance with law. The law would not permit promotion to a Government Servant against whom enquiry is pending or who suffers penalty. 11. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19