Dismissed¶63

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. C. Mahadevaiah

Service law – disciplinary proceedings

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2025/30868/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rule 11A(2) CCA Rules 1957; disagreement with enquiry report; reasons for disagreement; second show cause notice; withholding 25% pension permanently; recovery Rs.6,87,846/-; Deputy Director of Co-operative Audit; Zilla Panchayat audit report; KSAT Application No.2641/2022; order dated 09.08.2023; WP No.30868 of 2024 (S-KSAT); High Court of Karnataka; S.G. Pandit; K. V. Aravind; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Under Rule 11A(2) of the CCA Rules, the Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the Enquiry Officer's finding only if there is sufficient evidence on record, and in that event must record its own findings and its reasons for disagreement based on that evidence. ¶57

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. C. Mahadevaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29054-DB WP No. 30868 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 30868 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE UNDER SECRETARY (B AND C) DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE UNDER SECRETARY-2 DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. C. MAHADEVAIAH S/O. LATE CHIKKAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:29054-DB WP No. 30868 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT, R/AT NO. 995, SANMARGA 2^ND TAGE, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 011.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2023 IN APPLICATION NO.2641/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶28

The State Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 09.08.2023 in Application No.2641/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the respondent’s application questioning the order of penalty of withholding 25% of pension permanently and recovery of Rs.6,87,846/- is quashed.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29054-DB WP No. 30868 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent

¶32

was working as Deputy Director of Co-operative Audit. The departmental proceedings was initiated against the respondent by issuing charge memo and the Enquiry Officer after detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report dated 29.02.2016, holding that the charges are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority – State Government issued second show-cause notice dated 23.09.2019 disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer with an opportunity to the respondent to submit reply, if any. The respondent said to have submitted reply dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-A10) to the second show-cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority – State Government vide order dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure-A12) imposed a punishment of withholding 25% of pension permanently besides recovery of Rs.6,87,846/- from the petitioner. Questioning the said order of penalty, respondent was before the Tribunal in Application No.2641/2022. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 09.08.2023 allowed the application

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29054-DB WP No. 30868 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

of the respondent and set aside the order of penalty on the ground that no reasons are recorded in the second show-cause notice while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Questioning the order of the Tribunal, the State Authorities are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶36

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate

¶37

Smt.Sukanya Baliga for petitioners and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the State in its second show-cause notice dated 23.09.2019 has recorded reasons stating that misconduct of the respondent is made clear in the audit report of Zilla Panchayat. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner without getting approval of the proposal in the ward meeting and the Gram Sabha, submitted the same to the Zilla Panchayat for approval and even without approval,

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29054-DB WP No. 30868 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

implemented the project work, which is clear from the audit report of the Zilla Panchayat. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that the misconduct alleged against the respondent is serious and the Enquiry Officer has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the evidence on record would show that the respondent is responsible for causing loss to the Government which the Tribunal has failed to appreciate. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶42

Having heard the learned Additional

¶43

Government Advocate and on going through the writ petition papers, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned Additional Government Advocate and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

The Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that the disagreement recorded in the second show-cause

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:29054-DB WP No. 30868 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

notice is only a conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority restating the charges itself as reasons for the disagreement with the enquiry report. Admittedly, the Enquiry Officer in his report has given a categorical finding that the charges alleged against the delinquent officials 1 to 5 are not proved.

¶48

In terms of Rule 11A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’), the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Authority on any articles of charge by recording reasons for such disagreement based on the evidence on record. Relevant Rule 11A (2) of CCA Rules reads as follows:

¶49

“ 11A. Action on the inquiry report, -

¶50

(1) ……………..

¶51

(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such dis-agreement and record its

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:29054-DB WP No. 30868 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.”

¶56

The above Rule makes it abundantly clear that

¶57

the Disciplinary Authority shall record its own findings and it may disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, if there is sufficient evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority in the instant case in its second show-cause notice dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure-A9) has failed to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer based on evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority has not indicated as to what is the evidence on record and what is the evidence ignored by the Enquiry Officer to exonerate the respondent of the alleged charges. The second showcause notice would only indicate the allegations against the respondent based on the audit report. In terms of Rule 11A(2) of CCA Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is required to record its finding independent of the findings of the Enquiry Officer on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:29054-DB WP No. 30868 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61