Disposed¶41

Mrs Sarita Dange v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025WP/17669/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pending departmental enquiry — no decision taken; promotion and increments per seniority list withheld pending enquiry outcome; representation Annexure-K not considered; Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Ltd.; Assistant General Manager (AGM-P); mandamus sought; Court directs consideration of representation within two months; writ petition disposed of; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; HC-KAR; NC: 2025:KHC:37812.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation at Annexure-K in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ¶41

Mrs Sarita Dange Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37812 WP No. 17669 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17669 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS SARITA DANGE W/O MURALIMANAS.P AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 201, 1ST FLOOR, GREENWAY RESIDENCY PLOT NO. 28, 5TH MAIN 3RD CROSS NR COLONY, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 560019.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. K SHOBHA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LTD., TTMC 'A' BLOCK 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KH ROAD SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE – 560027

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. MONICA PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE A DECISION ON THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS LETTER AND GRANT THE PROMOTION AS PER SENIORITY LIST AND THE INCREMENTS ACCORDINGLY AS PER ANNEXUREK AT THE EARLIEST AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:37812 WP No. 17669 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶24

1. Issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to take a decision on the departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner.

¶25

2. To consider the petitioner's letter and grant the promotion as per seniority list and the increments accordingly as per ANNEXURE-K at the earliest.

¶26

3. Direct the Respondents to refrain from passing any order that holds up the Petitioner's promotion or affects the career growth until the decision on enquiry report.

¶27

Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

The petitioner was working as an Assistant General

¶29

Manager (AGM-P) in respondent-Corporation. Based on certain allegations, departmental enquiry was initiated against her. A notice has been issued to the petitioner on

¶30

10.07.2017 vide Annexure-B and the petitioner has

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37812 WP No. 17669 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

submitted her reply on 29.07.2017 (Annexure-B1). Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. Based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.01.2024 (Annexure-H), to which, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 16.01.2024 (Annexure-J). As no decision has been taken on the departmental enquiry and the petitioner’s case for promotion has not been considered, the petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure-K) to the respondent. Since the representation of the petitioner has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

The petitioner has submitted her representation vide Annexure-K and the respondent has not considered the same. Under the circumstances, it is suffice for this court to direct the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-K in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, within a period

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:37812 WP No. 17669 of 2025

¶36

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this

¶39

order.

¶40