the state of karnataka Vs Sri Shrishail K Karoli… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

the state of karnataka Vs Sri Shrishail K Karoli… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; the Tribunal's order dated 13.07.2023 setting aside the punishment and directing release of the withheld increments and benefits remains undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.07.2023 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench in Application No.11308/2022, setting aside the punishment imposed on the respondent, should be interfered with in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. +2 more

Court's answer

Taking note of the respondent's acquittal in the criminal proceedings, the long interval between the incident of 10.03.2010 and the penalty order of 11.10.2021, and the mental agony suffered by the respondent and his family members, the Tribunal by judicious discretion interfered with the order of penalty, and this Court does not wish to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in the absence of legally acceptable material on record.

Ratio / Principle

The evidence of Sri G. Manjunath, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the respondent cannot be relied upon, as he was not present at the time of the accident and examined the parked vehicle afterwards.

Key takeaways

The Motor Vehicle Inspector's observation that there was no mistake in joining the brake system and no mechanical defect in the vehicle does not clarify that at the relevant point of time there was no brake failure.ratio¶62
In the absence of specific evidence that the brake system in the vehicle was correct and working and that the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, it cannot be said that the charges levelled against the respondent are proved.ratio¶65
Appreciating the evidence of the eyewitnesses who were inmates of the vehicle and were examined on behalf of the petitioners (that the brake failed though applied on many occasions and the driver diverted the vehicle to reduce damage), it clearly demonstrates that the respondent delinquent had made his best efforts to avoid the accident and was not negligent.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — departmental punishment — withholding of two annual increments for two years imposed on a Fireman Driver (respondent) for alleged rash and negligent driving while returning from repair work near Gokak Bus Stand (accident dated 10.03.2010; injury to pedestrians; damage to Choudhary Medical Stores and the departmental vehicle). The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench (Application No.11308/2022) set aside the punishment and directed release of the withheld increments and benefits; the State and the Director General of Police, Fire & Emergency Services challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Held: (i) the evidence of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was not present when the accident occurred and inspected the parked vehicle afterwards, cannot be relied upon to prove negligence; (ii) his finding of no mechanical defect does not clarify that there was no brake failure at the relevant point of time; (iii) in the absence of specific evidence that the brakes were working and that the driver drove rashly and negligently, the charges cannot be said to be proved; (iv) eyewitness inmates of the vehicle examined on behalf of the petitioners deposed that the brake failed though applied repeatedly, demonstrating that the respondent made his best efforts to avoid the accident and was not negligent; (v) the petitioners' failure to examine the KSRTC mechanic who had advised that the brake system was not effective and required an airbrake system casts doubt on the Motor Vehicle Inspector's evidence; (vi) appreciating the entire evidence holistically, the Tribunal rightly found no negligence; its consideration of the criminal acquittal (FIR No.46/2010 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC; acquittal dated 03.12.2019), the long interval before the penalty order dated 11.10.2021, and the mental agony suffered by the respondent and his family justified interference with the penalty. Writ petition dismissed; the Tribunal's order left undisturbed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO. 103867 OF 2024 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PCAS),

HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL, KARNATAKA STATE, FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES, NO.1, ANNASWAMY MODILIYAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI. SHRISHAIL K. KAROLI S/O. KALLAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

OCC: FIREMAN DRIVER AT THE OFFICE OF FIRE STATION, HUKKERI, R/O. NANDI KURALI VILLAGE, TALUKA RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KUSHAL N. KAMBLE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI BENCH, BELAGAVI IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13-07-2023 IN APPLICATION NOS.11308 OF 2022 (ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13-07-2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI BENCH, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NOS.11308 OF 2022 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION NOS.11308 OF 2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.11308/2022.

The respondent is working as a driver in the office of the 2^nd petitioner, during the course of employment, charge memo was issued and the respondent replied and participated in the proceedings. The petitioner passed order dated 11.10.2021 by reducing two annual increments for a period of two years. The order of punishment was assailed before the Tribunal under the impugned order and the Tribunal set aside the punishment order by directing to release the withheld increments and all the benefits. Being aggrieved, the State Government has filed this writ petition assailing the order of the Tribunal.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government

Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in interfering with the order of punishment. The enquiry held against the respondent was proper and after compliance of the principles of natural justice which has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. The petitioners were able to prove by evidence that the respondent was negligent. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle has deposed that no defects in the brake system and the accident was not due to the mechanical defects, but it is due to the negligence of the driver. However, the Tribunal ignored the crucial evidence and recorded incorrect finding. It is submitted that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is not disproportionate and the same is in accordance with law. It is further submitted that when

the enquiry is held as proper, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment order. It is also submitted that the acquittal of the respondent from the criminal case

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

is because the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The Tribunal ought not to have acted like an appellate authority and reassess the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks

to allow the writ petition by upholding order of punishment.

Per contra, Sri Kushal N.Kamble, learned counsel appearing for respondent supports the order of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal by well reasoned order has come to conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent and also recorded that the

incident is of the year 2010 and after ten years, punishment of withholding two increments for two years was passed which resulted in respondent and his family members suffer mentally. It is submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is well reasoned order and does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

We have heard the arguments of the learned

Government Advocate for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.

The records indicate that the respondent was appointed as a driver in the petitioner No.2-Department, while discharging his duties on 10.03.2010, he was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01/G-8155, he caused accident by dashing vehicle to the ongoing pedestrians caused injury and thereafter he hit the vehicle

to Choudhary Medical Store by causing damage to the shop and also damage to the departmental vehicle. The jurisdictional police registered crime in FIR No.46/2010 for offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. After completion of the trial, the respondent was acquitted from the charges vide order dated 03.12.2019.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

The records further indicate that the petitioner

initiated departmental enquiry against the respondent by issuing charge memo dated 08.11.2010. The respondent participated in enquiry proceedings. The petitioners examined 10 witnesses to prove the charges against the respondent. The enquiry report does not clearly indicate that the charges leveled against the respondent are proved. The petitioners imposed punishment of withholding two increments for a period of two years on 11.10.2021.

The charge against the respondent is that on 10.03.2010, the respondent along with Station Officer and other officials took the vehicle to KSRTC Depot and after attending the repair work of hub greasing, brake setting, wheel setting etc., while returning back drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner near Gokak Bus Stand dashed against pedestrians caused injury to them and thereafter hit Choudhary Medical Stores caused damaged to the door of shop and also damaged to the department

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

vehicle. The enquiry report indicate that 10 witnesses have

been examined and 08 documents were got marked during the course of enquiry. One Sri G.Manjunath, Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that he has inspected the vehicle and there is no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Based on his sole evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that charges against the respondent are proved and after considering the reply, the punishment was inflected. The perusal of the evidence of said Sri G.Manjunath clearly indicate that he was not present when the accident occurred and he has examined the parked vehicle later in point and given the report. The evidence that the accident is caused due to the negligence of the respondent in our view cannot be relied as he was not present at the time of accident. Insofar as

his observation that there is no mistake in joining the brake system and there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle is concerned, the same does not clarify that at the relevant point of time there was no brake failure. The said witness has not spoken anything with regard to the brake

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

failure or whether the brake was applied and it was correctly working. In the absence of specific evidence that the brake system in the vehicle was correct and working, further that the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a

rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It cannot be said that the charges leveled against the respondent are proved. The evidence of Sri Anand Hanamant Madar and other officials of the petitioners who were inmates of the vehicle have clearly deposed that when the vehicle reached near the Gokak Bus Stand, the vehicle was slow and the road was very small. The driver applied the brake on many occasion, however brake was

not working and he could not stop the vehicle as the brake

was failed and the vehicle was proceeding towards downside and immediately other inmates and driver started shouting that the vehicle brake is failed and insisted the pedestrians to move away and to avoid further damage, the driver took the vehicle towards the left side and dashed to the footpath and the medical store on the

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

left side of the road to reduce the damage. If the aforesaid evidence of the eyewitnesses who were the inmates of the vehicle and who has been examined on behalf of the petitioners is appreciated it clearly demonstrate that the

respondent delinquent had made his best efforts to avoid the accident and was not negligent.

Further, the witnesses deposed that Sri Ramu, Mechanic of KSRTC after examining the vehicle had informed the respondent as well as other inmates that brake system of the vehicle is not working effectively and to make the system effective, airbrake system is required

along with two brake cylinder. The advice of the mechanic clearly indicates that he has advised to change the brake system and the existing system is not properly working. Despite such material on record with regard to the advice of the mechanic, the petitioners failed to examine the said mechanic in the enquiry proceedings, if it is contended that there was no such advice. The aforesaid facts clearly create doubt with regard to the veracity of the evidence of

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

Sri G.R.Manjunath, the Motor Vehicle Inspector who

deposed that there is no mechanical defect in the vehicle.

The witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners clearly deposed that the respondent has made his best effort to apply the brake, however brake system was not working and he has taken all the precautions to avoid major damage. We are of the considered view that the entire evidence is required to be understood holistically and the Tribunal considering the same has recorded clear finding that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent. The Tribunal has also taken note of

the fact that in the criminal proceedings, the respondent was acquitted and the incident in question is dated 10.03.2010, the enquiry report was submitted on 03.12.2012, show-cause notice was issued on 18.04.2018 which is more than three years, the respondent submitted reply on 08.05.2015 and penalty order was passed on 11.10.2021 after six years from the date of submission of the reply by the respondent. The Tribunal has also

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9653-DB WP No. 103867 of 2024

HC-KAR

considered that the respondent and his family members

have suffered mental agony for enormous period of time and by judicious discretion interfered with the order of penalty, we do not wish to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in the absence of legally acceptable material on record.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

CLK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1