- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH 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. 22301 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRISON AND REFORM SERVICES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON AND REFORM SERVICES, KARNATAKA STATE, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU 560.009. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, DHARWAD 580 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) AND: 1. NANDISH M. K., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O KENJODIYAPPA, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 ASST. JAILOR, WOMEN CENTRAL PRISON, SHIVAMOGGA, SOGANE POST, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 222, R/AT No.C1, PRISON QUARTER, SOGANE POST, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 222. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRASANNA D.P. ADVOCATE AND SRI SHIVAPUTRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2024 IN APPLICATION No. 2013/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. 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) Heard Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Prasanna D.P., and Sri Shivaputrappa, learned counsel for the caveat-respondent No.1. 2. This writ petition is filed by the State assailing the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Karnataka State - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.2013/2023. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent, while working as Head Warden at the Central Prison, Shivamogga, on 21.05.2017, was on duty when an undertrial prisoner escaped from the prison. Pursuant thereto, a charge memo dated 24.01.2018 was issued. The respondent contended that he had discharged his duties from 13:00 hours to 16:00 hours and thereafter from 17:00 hours until lock-up. An FIR was registered in Crime No.67/2017. 3.1 The respondent submitted a reply to the charge memo contending that, at the time of handing over charge, no prisoner was missing and that the allegations levelled against him were false and baseless. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who, upon considering the evidence on record, concluded that the charges against DGO Nos.1 to 3 were not proved and recommended action against DGO Nos.4 and 5. After receipt of the enquiry report, a show-cause notice dated 14.12.2018 was issued, to which the respondent submitted his reply denying the charges. Upon consideration of the reply, a penalty of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 withholding two annual increments permanently with cumulative effect was imposed. 3.2 Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before petitioner No.1, which was initially allowed by order dated 22.12.2021 and the same was approved by the Hon’ble Minister on 19.01.2022. It is stated that subsequently the said order was reviewed and the appeal came to be rejected by order dated 24.03.2022. It was contended that the order passed on review, rejecting the appeal, was without jurisdiction and not maintainable, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent assailed the said order before the Tribunal. 3.3 The Tribunal, upon consideration, noted that the appeal had earlier been allowed exonerating the respondent and that the same had been approved by the Hon’ble Home Minister. The Tribunal further held that the order passed in review, converting the order of exoneration into one dismissing the appeal, without issuing notice to or affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, was unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of rejection dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 24.03.2022 as well as the order of penalty dated 02.04.2019. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the State has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that Note No.37 in the appeal proceedings recommended exoneration of the respondent and that the said recommendation was approved by the Hon’ble Home Minister. It is contended that such recommendation was made without considering the report of the Enquiry Officer. Upon consideration of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the material on record, the approval granting exoneration was reviewed and the appeal came to be dismissed. 4.1 Learned AGA further submits that the notings made in the order sheet are only recommendatory in nature and that no final decision was taken on the appeal. Therefore, such notings would not enure to the benefit of the respondent. It is also submitted that unless the notings culminate in a formal order and the same is communicated to the respondent, no right would accrue in his favour. Hence, it is contended that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 there was no requirement to issue notice to the respondent to review the earlier order. 4.2 In support of his submissions, learned AGA places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and Others [(2018) 8 SCC 215] and Municipal Committee, Barwala, District Hisar, Haryana v. Jai Narayan and Company and Another [(2023) 14 SCC 786]. 5. Per contra, Sri Prasanna D.P. and Sri Shivaputrappa, learned counsel appearing for the caveat- respondent, submit that the notings in the order sheet are explicit and unequivocal, clearly indicating that a decision was taken to exonerate the respondent and that the same was approved by the Hon’ble Home Minister. It is contended that once the appeal is allowed exonerating the respondent, the decision stands concluded. If such a decision is sought to be reviewed, for whatever reason, the respondent would be entitled to prior notice and an opportunity of hearing. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 5.1 Learned counsel further submit that the order passed by the Tribunal, holding that once the appeal was decided exonerating the respondent, the same could not have been reviewed without affording notice and opportunity of hearing, is justified and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. On these grounds, learned counsel pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 7. It is evident from the record that a charge memo was issued on 24.01.2018 in respect of the escapement of a prisoner from the Central Prison, Shivamogga, on 21.05.2017, when the respondent was on duty. An enquiry was conducted, which concluded that the charges against the respondent stood proved. Aggrieved by the penalty imposed, the respondent preferred an appeal before the first petitioner. 7.1 It is contended that the said appeal was allowed by order dated 22.12.2021. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the competent authorities exonerating the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 respondent, it is further contended that the order dated 19.01.2022 was subsequently reviewed and the appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 24.03.2022. It is contended that once the appeal was allowed, a review adverse to the interest of the respondent could not have been undertaken without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal accepted the said contention and accordingly set aside the order of penalty dated 02.04.2019 as well as the order rejecting the appeal dated 24.03.2022. 8. We directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to produce the order sheet relating to the appeal in question. It is seen from the record that the Deputy Secretary prepared Note No.37, recording that, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the respondent based on the report of the Superintendent and opined that the respondent be exonerated, and the same was submitted for approval of the Hon’ble Home Minister. The said note was endorsed by the Principal Secretary to Government, the Additional Chief Secretary, and thereafter approved by the Hon’ble Home Minister, ordering exoneration of the respondent on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 19.01.2022. The said approval was again endorsed by the Additional Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary to Government, and other authorities. 8.1 However, in Note No.45, reference was made to the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, wherein it was recorded that there appeared to be sufficient evidence to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent, and a request was made to review the order passed at Note No.40. This note was made by the Principal Secretary to Government and placed for orders before the Hon’ble Home Minister. The Hon’ble Home Minister, without assigning any reasons, recorded the review and rejected the appeal by order dated 04.03.2022. 8.2 We notice that Note No.37 recommending exoneration of the respondent was endorsed by the Principal Secretary to Government and approved by the Hon’ble Home Minister, and the same was again endorsed by the Principal Secretary to Government. However, on the very same material and after a lapse of more than one month, the very Principal Secretary to Government sought review of the order at Note No.40 exonerating the respondent. Without recording any - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 reasons, the Hon’ble Home Minister proceeded to review the earlier order and reject the appeal by order dated 04.03.2022. This decision fails application of mind. 8.3 We note one more peculiarity in the case. The note sheet placed before the Court, records rejection of the appeal by the Hon’ble Home Minister on 04.03.2022, without any formal order or assignment of reasons. The order by the government dismissing the appeal is dated 24.03.2022. The order dated 24.03.2022 cannot be construed as a mere communication of the reasons by which the appeal was rejected. The order containing reasons appears to have been passed by a different authority after a lapse of about twenty days from the date on which the appeal was rejected. This raises serious doubt as to the correctness and validity of the order dated 24.03.2022. 8.4 Further, a combined reading of the order sheet from Note Nos.37 to 48 clearly indicates that the respondent was exonerated on 19.01.2022 and that such exoneration was subsequently reviewed and rejected on 04.03.2022 without - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 issuing any notice to, or affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pimpri Chinchwad New Twonship Development Authority v. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and others [(2018) 8 SCC 215] held that; "36. …. a mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity; second, once the decision on such issue is taken and approved by the competent authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, it is required to be communicated to the person concerned by the State Government. In other words, so long as the decision based on such internal deliberation is not approved and communicated by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed in that behalf to the person concerned, such noting does not create any right in favour of the person concerned nor it partake the nature of any legal order so as to enable the person concerned to claim any benefit of any such internal deliberation. Such noting(s) or/and deliberation(s) are always capable of being changed or/and amended or/and withdrawn by the competent authority." 10. In Municipal Committee, Barwala, District Hisar, Haryana v. Jai Narayan and Company and another [(2023) 14 SCC 786], it is held as; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 "16. ……. 24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, can such noting be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review." 11. It is undisputed that the decisions or notings recorded in the order sheet were not communicated to the respondent. If the note sheets referred to by the Tribunal are examined in the light of the principles laid down above, unless a decision taken by the competent authority is communicated to the person concerned, such notings do not create any right in favour of the person concerned, nor do they partake the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 character of a legal order so as to enable the person concerned to claim any benefit on the basis of such internal notings or deliberations. 12. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. Consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. 13. The respondent has also raised other grounds on merits, questioning the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as well as the imposition of penalty. The said contentions have not been examined by the Tribunal. In view of the above finding that the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable, the other contentions raised by the respondent cannot be left unanswered and require consideration. 14. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2389-DB WP No. 22301 of 2025 dated 28.03.2024 passed in Application No2013/2023 is set aside. (iii) The application is restored to the file and remitted back to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore for fresh consideration on merit. (iv) It is open to the respondent-applicant to raise all other contentions before the Tribunal. (v) The other contentions of the parties are left open. (vi) No order as to cost. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10