Dismissed¶¶40

Smt Jyothi B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2025WP/16986/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench: K. Somashekar and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.), WP No. 16986 of 2023 (S-KSAT), decided 01-02-2025: petition by Smt. Jyothi B. under Articles 226/227 challenging a departmental enquiry report dated 24.04.2023 and a KAT order dated 13.7.2023 in Application No. 3047/2023; dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to counsel's memo dated 18.12.2024; no adjudication on merits and no case law discussed - of limited value as a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. ¶¶40

Smt Jyothi B Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:4625-DB WP No. 16986 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 16986 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JYOTHI B. W/O LATE SRINIVAS KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS HEAD MISTRESS GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL ENNEHOLE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT, NANDU HOUSE PADUVARI, BYNDOOR-576 214

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY MS. TISMY, ADVCOATE FOR SRI. DR. S. ARUMUGHAM, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4625-DB WP No. 16986 of 2023

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUATION UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101

¶19

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI-576 214

¶20

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 214

¶21

DR. SRIPRIYAN MANTHEROL DEPARTMENT ENQUIRY OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ANOOPKUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING No. S.No. A5/DEPARTMENT ENQUITY 1/2021-22 DATED 24.4.2023 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ENQUIRY OFFICER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KAT DATED 13.7.2023 IN APPLICATION No. 3047/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:4625-DB WP No. 16986 of 2023

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶31

This writ petition has been initiated by the petitioner namely Jyothi B to quash the impugned enquiry report vide No.S.A5/Department enquiry No.1/2021-22 dated 24.04.2023 at Annexure-A and to quash the impugned order passed by the KAT dated 13.7.2023 in Application No.3047/2023 vide Annexure-A1.

¶32

In this matter learned counsel namely

¶33

Dr.S.Arumugham is on record, but represented by a counsel namely Ms.Tismy. Whereas, the learned HCGP for Respondents No.1 to 5 is present. Though process have been served upon respondent No.6, he remained absent.

¶34

Whereas, in this proceedings, counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo for withdrawal of this writ petition. But the counsel has not furnished the second set of the memo for withdrawal.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:4625-DB WP No. 16986 of 2023

¶37

This memo has filed on 18.12.2024. The said memo indicates this petition does not survive for consideration and hence seeks permission for withdrawal of this writ petition.

¶38

Therefore, the memo is taken on record. Consequently, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw this writ petition as

¶39

sought for.

¶40

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶41

Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

¶42

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶43

AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Jyothi B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jyothi B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. B N Rajendra Vs Smt. Suma

Smt. Puttamma Vs Smt. Nagarathna

Sri. Mohammed Waheed Ahmed Vs Smt. Tasmeem Waheed Ahmed

Sri Kempaiah Vinay Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Ghani Ulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Control Component India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of