- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9970-DB WP No. 46889 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH 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. 46889 OF 2019 (S) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA UPALOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.) AND: 1. H. B. CHANDRASEKARAIAH S/O. H. B. BORALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, C.T. KERE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDIG, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9970-DB WP No. 46889 of 2019 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.7797/2011 DATED 31.01.2019 AS PER ANNX-C. 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 K.V. ARAVIND) The Karnataka Lokayukta has approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.01.2019 passed in Application No.7797/2011 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”). 2. The first respondent, while working as Village Accountant in Tumakuru District, was subjected to a joint enquiry. A charge memo was issued to the first - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9970-DB WP No. 46889 of 2019 respondent along with two other Delinquent Government Officials (DGOs). A joint charge was levelled against all three DGOs. Upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charge was proved against the first respondent herein and not proved against the other DGOs. 2.1 On the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner recommended imposition of penalty by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect and postponement of the first respondent’s promotion by three years. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 05.11.2011, a penalty was imposed withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect and postponing the promotion by three years. 2.2 The said order was assailed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, upon examination of the material on record, including the enquiry report and the nature of the misconduct alleged, held that the penalty of withholding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9970-DB WP No. 46889 of 2019 increments with cumulative effect was harsh and disproportionate to the charge proved. Accordingly, the Tribunal modified the penalty to withholding three annual increments without cumulative effect. 3. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order of penalty was imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the course of the enquiry. It is contended that, even assuming the Tribunal was of the view that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the charge proved, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to modify the same. According to the learned counsel, the matter ought to have been remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration on the question of imposition of penalty. 4. Sri. K.R. Rajendra learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9970-DB WP No. 46889 of 2019 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material available on record, including the writ papers. 6. The charge memo was issued on 24.10.2005. The article of charge reads as follows: “That you DGO-1 K.S.Ramakrishnaiah, Village Accountant, DGO-2 Ganganna, Asst. Village Accountant and DGO-3 H.B.Chandrashekaraiah, Incharge Village Accountant of Dabbeghatta Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District while working as such, on account of acquisition of land measuring 0.25 guntas in Sy.No.92 new number 120 for the purpose of Hemavathi Canal, the owner of the land Sri. Sannabyregowda was awarded with a compensation amount. But Sri.Sannabyregowda the awardee had expired by that time. His son M.S.Nagaraju approached you DGO-1 and enquired about the matter. You, DGO- 1 created false genealogical tree and pahani in the name of Sannabyregowda and you DGO-2 Ganganna helped DGO-1 in doing so and each of you received illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.150/- for doing the said work and thereafter you DGO-3 H.B.Chandrashekaraiah, the Incharge - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9970-DB WP No. 46889 of 2019 village Accountant has certified the photograph of M.S.Nagaraju as that of late Sannabyregowda without verifying the genuineness of the same and allowed Sri.M.S.Nagaraju to receive the compensation amount illegally. Thereby you DGO- 1, 2 and 3, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The said act of you DGOs amounts to unbecoming of a Government servant and as such you have committed an act of misconduct as enumerated under Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966.” 7. The enquiry was conducted and the order of penalty came to be passed on 05.11.2011. The first respondent preferred an Application before the Tribunal in the year 2011. The Tribunal, by order dated 31.01.2019, disposed of the Application and modified the penalty imposed. 8. While modifying the penalty, the Tribunal took into consideration the gravity of the misconduct and the explanation offered by the first respondent. It is further evident from the order of the Tribunal that the identification of Sri Sannabyregowda who was alleged to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9970-DB WP No. 46889 of 2019 have been deceased on the date of such identification for the purpose of disbursement of land acquisition compensation was made with the assistance of the Grama Sahayak and in the presence of the villagers. 9. Having recorded the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal proceeded to modify the penalty. Though it maintained the penalty of withholding three annual increments, it altered the same from being with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect. The said modification, in our considered view, falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 10. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 11. It is also pertinent to note that the order of the Tribunal is dated 31.01.2019. The present writ petition is before this Court for “Preliminary Hearing” after a lapse of nearly seven years, due to non compliance of office objection by petitioner. Having regard to the inordinate - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9970-DB WP No. 46889 of 2019 delay and the discretionary nature of the relief granted by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20