Dismissed¶¶45

Sri. Murtuzasab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/11889/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stagnation increment; withholding of increments; demotion to lower pay scale; penalty attained finality; Endorsement dated 06.12.2023; KSAT Bengaluru A.No.1011/2024 dated 25.10.2024; Karnataka Administrative Tribunal; Section 128 APMC Act; recovery quashed; liberty for APMC proceedings; W.P.No.37411/2016 and connected matters; S.L.P.No.15521/2017 dismissed; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 rejected; no interference; service law Karnataka; APMC Yeshwantpur Market Supervisor.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the material including the Co-ordinate Bench's order, the Court found the reasons offered by the Tribunal very formidable, saw no reason for interference, and rejected the writ petition ¶¶45

Sri. Murtuzasab Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order in A.No.1011/2024 dated 25.10.2024 upholding the Endorsement dated 06.12.2023 confirming the penalty of demotion/withholding of increments (which had attained finality) called for interference, given the liberty for proceedings under Section 128 of the APMC Act and the ensuing inquiry report on the financial loss

¶¶41

Court's answer

On perusal of the material including the Co-ordinate Bench's order, the Court found the reasons offered by the Tribunal very formidable, saw no reason for interference, and rejected the writ petition

¶¶45

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the Tribunal's reasoning, the Court treated the penalty of demotion to the lower pay scale/withholding of increments as having attained finality after W.P.No.37411/2016 (recovery alone quashed, with liberty for Section 128 APMC Act proceedings) and the dismissal of S.L.P.No.15521/2017, so that the Endorsement dated 06.12.2023 involved no illegality and could not be re-challenged

¶¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: B M Shyam Prasad and T.M. Nadaf JJ.; per B M Shyam Prasad J.), order dated 09.10.2025 in W.P. No. 11889 of 2025 (S-KSAT): petition rejected. A 72-year-old ex-Market Supervisor of APMC, Yeshwantpur, challenged the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order in A.No.1011/2024 dated 25.10.2024 and sought quashing of the second respondent's Endorsement dated 06.12.2023 confirming the penalty of demotion to lower pay scale/withholding of increments, praying also for release of 6th stagnation increments from January 2012 with consequential benefits. The Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.37411/2016 and connected matters had confirmed the penalty while quashing only the recovery ordered by the Disciplinary Authority, granting liberty for proceedings under Section 128 of the APMC Act, 1966; S.L.P.No.15521/2017 having been dismissed by the Apex Court, the penalty stood final. Holding the Tribunal's reasons formidable, the Court found no ground for interference and rejected the petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 11889 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. MURTUZASAB S/O. NASIRUDDINSAB PINJAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, EX-MARKET SUPERVISOR, APMC, YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE-560 022 AND R/AT NO.896, GROUND FLOOR 2ND A MAIN, 2ND B CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, BSK III STAGE, KALIDASNAGAR, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGAORE-560 085

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001

¶20

THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT, NO.16, 2ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD P.B NO. 5309 BANGALORE 560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.No-1011/2024 DATED 25.10.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRAY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT AND RELEASE 6TH STAGNATION INCREMENTS FROM JANUARY 2012 AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGLAURU IN A.No-1011/2024 DATED 25.10.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶31

The petitioner is unsuccessful in his application in No.1011/2024 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. The petitioner in filing this application has sought for quashing of the second respondent's Endorsement dated 06.12.2023, and the second respondent by this Endorsement has confirmed that the petitioner will have to suffer the penalty that has reached finality with the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.37411/2016 and connected matters.

¶32

The petitioner's grievance with this order stems from the liberty granted by the Co-ordinate Bench in the afore decision for proceedings under Section 128 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 [for short, ' the APMC Act' ]. The Tribunal, after detailing the earlier proceedings and the outcome in the writ petition by the Co-ordinate Bench, has opined thus:

¶36

"7. Therefore, looking to the order of the Hon'ble High Court so far as the first part of the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of demotion to the lower pay scale or withholding of increment or etc., it was not at all interfered with by the Hon'ble High Court. But, only so far as the recovery of the amount ordered by the disciplinary authority against the applicant herein and others that was quashed. However, liberty was given to the Disciplinary Authority or the Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee to resort to appropriate proceedings under Section 128 of the APMC Act. The said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was not at all interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court because the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed S.L.P.No.15521/2017. Therefore, so far as first part of the penalty of demotion of the applicant to lower pay scale

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

or withholding of the increments etc., it attains finality. Therefore, applicant cannot challenge the same again before this Tribunal. Therefore, we don't find any illegality or legal infirmity in the order under Annexure-A14 dated 06.12.2023. Applicant has failed to make out a case."

¶40

Mr. P. N. Nanja Reddy, the learned

¶41

counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's grievance as against imposition of any penalty is premised on the outcome of the proceedings under Section 128 of the APMC Act as enabled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.37411/2016 and connected matters, and the learned counsel emphasises that in the inquiry that has ensued after the Co-ordinate Bench’s order, a report is filed stating that the petitioner is not responsible for the financial loss.

¶42

Mr. Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of the afore submission with the learned Additional

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40195-DB WP No. 11889 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Government Advocate canvassing that what was left open by the Co-ordinate Bench in deciding the aforesaid writ petition was the recovery of the losses as contemplated under Section 128 of the APMC Act but otherwise, imposing the penalty is confirmed. This Court, on perusal of the material including the Co-ordinate Bench's order, finds the reasons offered by the Tribunal very formidable, and therefore, opines that there is no reason for interference and the petition stands rejected.

¶46

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶48

Sri. Murtuzasab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Murtuzasab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Informatica Llc

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Altair Engineering Inc.

Shivamadaiah M Vs the Director General

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs H K Thppeswamy

Sri.Prashant Kumar G Vs the Union of India

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka