- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8223-DB WP No. 34694 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 34694 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI IRANNA BALGURGI, S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA BALGURGI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED POLICE INSPECTOR, R/AT No.27, KALPARUKSHA, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, PRAGATHI LAYOUT, MUDDINPALAYA, BENGALURU-560 066. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8223-DB WP No. 34694 of 2024 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS UNSUSTAINABLE ETC. 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 S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2024 in Application No.1775/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') rejecting the petitioner's prayer to quash the Government order dated 30.06.2023 (Annexure-A14) treating the period from 17.09.2019 to 22.07.2020 as leave at the credit of the petitioner. 2. Heard Smt. Sumana Baliga M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8223-DB WP No. 34694 of 2024 Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under order dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure-A1), the petitioner, who was awaiting posting was posted as Police Inspector (Civil) to Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Authority (KLCDA) and when the petitioner tried to report to duty at the transferred place, he found that the office was closed. Further, learned counsel would also submit that the post at KLCDA was abolished in terms of the Gazetted Notification dated 26.03.2018. 3.1 Thereafter, the petitioner reported the same to the higher authorities in the Home Department. However, no re- posting was given to the petitioner, the petitioner is said to have made representation on 10.03.2020 (Annexure-A3), requesting for suitable other posting. Thereafter, when the petitioner requested the respondents to regularise the period, the Government under the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 (Annexure-A14), treated the period from 17.09.2019 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8223-DB WP No. 34694 of 2024 09.03.2020 as 'leave at the credit of the petitioner' and from 10.03.2020 to 22.07.2020 is treated as 'compulsory waiting'. 3.2 Learned counsel is aggrieved by the order treating the period from 17.09.2019 to 09.03.2020 as on leave at the credit of the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that when there was no post, the respondent-authorities could not have transferred and posted the petitioner to KLCDA and the petitioner had made his best effort to report to duty at the KLCDA. As he found that there was no post, he reported the same to the authorities on 10.03.2020. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the writ petition and to treat the above stated period which is treated as on leave as 'compulsory waiting period' and to pay the consequential financial benefits. 3.3 Learned counsel would point out from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal was not right in observing that the petitioner has not produced any scrap of paper and further it is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the documents placed on record. Learned counsel would submit that for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner has been penalized. It was within the knowledge of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8223-DB WP No. 34694 of 2024 respondents that there was no posting, in spite of that, the petitioner was posted to KLCDA. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order passed by the Tribunal and would submit that the petitioner, if there was no post at the transferred place, immediately ought to have reported back to the second respondent and sought re- posting. Having kept quiet for nearly 6 months, the petitioner cannot claim to treat the said period as compulsory waiting. Thus, he would pray for the dismissal of the petition. 5. 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 for the following reasons. 6. Admittedly the petitioner who was waiting for posting was given posting under order dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure-A1) to the KLCDA. The Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the averment of the application - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8223-DB WP No. 34694 of 2024 would indicate that the petitioner went to the said office for reporting to duty and it was found that the office was closed and the petitioner could not report to duty. If the post was not available or if the office to which the petitioner was posted was closed, it was the duty and responsibility of the petitioner to inform the same forthwith to respondent No.2 and to seek an appropriate posting. However, the petitioner has kept quiet for nearly 6 months from 16.09.2019 to 09.03.2020. Only on 10.03.2020, the petitioner informed the same to the second respondent (Annexure-A3-representation) and sought for posting. 7. The Tribunal was right in observing that no scrap of materials were placed on record to establish any effort that was made by the petitioner between 17.09.2019 to 09.03.2020 either by making representation to the first or second respondent or any other correspondence. A government servant where he is posted, if the post was not available in the said place, it is his duty to report back to the Head of the Department forthwith. The petitioner having failed to report - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8223-DB WP No. 34694 of 2024 with regard to non-availability of the post forthwith has resulted in treating the said period as 'leave which is at his credit'. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contented that for no fault of petitioner he has been penalized. The petitioner is penalized for his own wrong. When it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that there was no post at KLCDA, it was his bounden duty to report back to respondent No.2 forthwith, but however the petitioner has taken nearly 6 months to report the same to respondent No.2. 9. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20