1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.62349/2016 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI B SURESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O B SOMANATHA R/O FLAT NO.18 MELBOWS APARTMENTS LOBOLANE, MALLIKATTA MANGALURU-575001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVEEN PRALHAD KATTIMANI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE WESTERN REGION MANGALURU DISTRICT MANGALURU- 575001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU- 575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM R1 & 2 WHICH RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER ANNX-A DATED 07.04.2016 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.3336/2006 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND THE ORDER ANNX-B DATED 28.04.2005 BY THE R1; QUASH THE ORDER ANNX-A DATED 07.04.2016 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.3336/2006 BY THE K.S.A.T. BENGALURU AND THE ORDER ANNX-B DATED 28.04.2005 BY THE R1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 21.01.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The above writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning order dated 07.04.2016 in Application No.3336/2006 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting petitioner’s prayer to quash order dated 28.04.2005 dismissing his 3 appeal questioning order of penalty of compulsory retirement dated 10.11.2004. 2. The above writ petition was filed on 05.12.2016 and the writ petition was dismissed by peremptory order dated 23.03.2017 for non- compliance of office objections. I.A.No.1/2024 for condonation of delay of 2743 days in filing re-calling application and I.A.No.2/2024 for re-calling order dated 23.03.2017 are filed on 25.09.2024. When the writ petition was listed for orders, we have heard the I.As as well as writ petition together on 21.01.2026 and the same are disposed of by this order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, when the petitioner was working as Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve, Mangaluru, articles of charge dated 24.06.2003 under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘1965 4 Rules’) was issued to the petitioner alleging that, on 01.02.2003, at about 10.30 p.m., petitioner went to a petty shop situated at A.B.Shetty Circle, Mangalore Town belonging to Sri.Oman Kuttan, who was carrying on petty business and demanded Rs.100/- and when he refused to pay Rs.100/-, abused him in filthy language; assaulted him and intimidated him to take his life by showing a knife and in that regard, a criminal case is registered in Crime No.24/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC by the Mangalore South Police Station and thus, committed serious misconduct and exhibited indiscipline. The second charge was that the petitioner was causing public disturbance and committed misconduct and exhibited indiscipline in the department which has resulted in the registration of Crime No.26/03 under Section 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C. A detailed enquiry was conducted against petitioner 5 for the above two charges and the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 29.03.2004 held that charge No.1 is proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the second charge is not proved. 4. The Disciplinary Authority – second respondent after issuing second show cause notice along with enquiry report, by order dated 10.11.2004, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner, against which, the petitioner appealed before the first respondent which came to be dismissed by first respondent’s order dated 28.04.2005. Questioning both the orders, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 07.04.2016, dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that the charge No.1 is proved based on evidence and also found that findings cannot be said to be perverse. Questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as the 6 Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Pruthveen Kattimani for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Learned counsel Sri.Pruthveen Kattimani for petitioner would submit that the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of compulsory retirement is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. The charges are not proved and there is no evidence or material to prove the charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on the same set of facts, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.179/2003 before the JMFC(II) Court, Mangaluru and by judgment dated 17.11.2003, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Therefore, he submits that 7 the Disciplinary Authority without looking into the same, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. 7. It is submitted that the Tribunal also failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and the Tribunal also failed to examine the contention of proportionality of punishment when compared to the nature of charge. Learned counsel in support of his contentions places reliance on the judgment dated 23.04.2025 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5497/2025 (MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS). 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for respondents would submit that the petitioner was working in a disciplined police force and was expected to maintain a high degree of conduct and rightly for the proved misconduct of demanding money and abusing by filthy 8 language, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of compulsory retirement, after enquiry. It is further contended that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner was given every opportunity to defend. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the points which falls for our consideration are: i) Whether the petitioner has made out any cause to allow the I.As? ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority require interference? 9 10. Answer to both the points would be in the Affirmative and Negative respectively, for the following reasons: The petitioner was working in a disciplined police force. Personnel working in police department are expected to maintain high degree of conduct and they are expected to have good relationship with the public. In the case on hand, the charge against the petitioner is very serious in nature i.e., at about 10.30 p.m., demanding money from a petty shop owner and when refused to pay, abusing in a filthy language by showing knife and also threatening his life. 11. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner participated in enquiry taking assistance of a police friend. The Disciplinary Authority before the Enquiry Officer examined in all, 11 witnesses and marked 9 documents. However, no evidence was let in on behalf of the petitioner. 10 12. No strict rules of evidence are applicable to prove the charge in a departmental proceedings and charge could be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. A perusal of enquiry report would indicate that the Enquiry Officer has based his findings on evidence and material on record. When first charge of demanding amount and abusing with filthy language, threatening life showing knife is proved, the Disciplinary Authority is justified in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. 13. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court in its power of judicial review would only examine the decision making process and would not go into the question of sufficiency or otherwise of evidence. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner is acquitted of the 11 charges in a criminal proceedings initiated based on the same set of facts. Therefore, the same ought to have been taken note of and the petitioner ought to have been exonerated of the charges in the departmental proceedings. The judgment dated 17.11.2003 in C.C.No.2917/2003 is placed on record as Annexure-G. 15. On going through the said judgment, we are of the considered view that the said judgment is passed as all the witnesses turned hostile. Moreover, acquittal in a criminal case on the same set of facts is not a bar for initiation of departmental proceedings. 16. The Tribunal under impugned order rightly dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the order of compulsory retirement holding that conclusion drawn by Enquiry Officer is based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse. 12 17. The decision of MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have no application to the facts of the present case since the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically recorded that neither has the department filed being submitted for perusal nor has the respondent-State of Bihar prayed for any extension of time; the consequence of non-compliance of such order is fatter. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that findings are based on mere suspicion. 18. It is also to be noted that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in the departmental proceedings and the petitioner through his police friend, cross-examined the witnesses examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he has not been given proper opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. 13 The punishment imposed is proportionate when compared to the nature and gravity of the charge. 19. Thus, we do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 20. The above writ petition was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections by peremptory order dated 23.03.2017 and application for re-calling was filed after more than seven years from the date of dismissal. In the application for re-calling, it is stated that the petitioner sustained severe medical and physical illness due to compulsory retirement and had taken native treatment. Further, it is stated that his earlier counsel was elevated as Judge of this Court and when recently enquired, it came to his knowledge that the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.03.2017. Though the reasons are not believable, in the interest of justice, the applications are allowed. 14 Delay of 2743 days in filing the I.A for re-calling is condoned and I.A.No.2/2024 for re-calling is allowed. 21. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT: bms