Dismissed¶49

Shakeel Ahmed. C. W. v. State of Karnataka

Service law (S-KSAT) – Charge memo

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2025WP/24408/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 24408/2024 (S-KSAT), HC Karnataka, 11-08-2025, DB (S.G.Pandit & K.V.Aravind JJ): writ petition against KSAT order refusing to quash articles of charge dated 11.04.2023 alleging park encroachment in Survey No.76; charge memo not interferable at initial stage; enquiry required; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Division Bench is not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order; the Tribunal rightly concluded that it is not a case for interference with the articles of charge. ¶44

Shakeel Ahmed. C. W. Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 in Application No.4346/2023 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the articles of charge dated 11.04.2023) should be set aside.

¶26

Court's answer

The Division Bench is not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order; the Tribunal rightly concluded that it is not a case for interference with the articles of charge.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Given the nature of the charge (allegation of encroachment of park area), the matter requires enquiry with material placed on record, and the petitioner will get an opportunity to defend himself and establish that he is innocent and had no knowledge of the encroachment.

¶44

Key takeaways

Consistent with the settled position that courts should not normally interfere with a charge memo at the initial stage, the Bench finds no error or illegality in the Tribunal's order; the writ petition lacks merit and stands rejected.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law (S-KSAT) - Charge memo - Initial-stage interference refused. Petitioner, a Commissioner in the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, challenged before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal articles of charge dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-A8) alleging that a park in Survey No.76 was encroached and that the encroachment was within his knowledge without action taken; the Tribunal rejected the application (order dated 19.02.2024 in Application No.4346/2023) holding that a charge memo cannot be interfered with at the initial stage. The Division Bench (S.G.Pandit and K.V.Aravind, JJ.; order per S.G.Pandit, J.) declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227, holding that the allegation of encroachment of park area requires enquiry with material on record, during which the petitioner would get an opportunity to defend himself and show he was innocent and had no knowledge of the encroachment; finding no error or illegality in the Tribunal's order, the writ petition was rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

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

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 24408 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SHAKEEL AHMED. C. W., S/O ABDUL WAHID, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, No.5 AND 6, JALABHAVAN 1^ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560029.

¶13

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001.

¶18

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDA,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001.

¶23

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURAGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA 577501.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/02/2024 IN APPLICATION No.4346/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

Petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order

¶33

dated 19.02.2024 in Application No.4346/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') rejecting his application wherein he had challenged articles of charge dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-A8).

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Heard Sri. Zameer Pasha, learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioner and Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned AGA for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was before the Tribunal questioning the articles of charge dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-A8) wherein in sum and substance the allegation is that park in Survey No.76 is encroached and the encroachment was within the knowledge of the petitioner, who has not taken any action to remove the encroachment. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to inspection report at Annexure-A6 dated 13.11.2018 and contends that there is no encroachment.

¶39

Learned counsel would submit that the charge memo is issued only to harass the petitioner and by virtue of charge memo, the petitioner is denied the promotion. Learned counsel would submit that there is no substance in the articles of charge which requires interference. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal without going into any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, dismissed the application only on the ground that charge memo cannot be

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

interfered at the initial stage. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶43

Learned AGA on the other hand supports the order passed by the Tribunal and would submit that the subject matter of articles of charge requires enquiry and at this stage, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the merit or otherwise of the charge. Thus, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking note of the charge against the petitioner, has rightly come to the conclusion that it is not a case for interference with the articles of charge. When the nature of charge is looked into i.e., allegation of encroachment of park area, the same requires enquiry by placing material on record. The petitioner would get an opportunity to defend himself and place material on record to establish that the petitioner is innocent and he has no knowledge of the encroachment as alleged in the charge memo.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:30940-DB WP No. 24408 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again in catena of

¶49

decisions held that normally, Court should not interfere with the charge memo at the initial stage. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition stands rejected.

¶50

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶52

VBS/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39

Shakeel Ahmed. C. W. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Ahmed. C. W. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Suma Vs Deputy Director

Sri. C. R. Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a v Srinivasulu Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narasimhamurthy C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Y Veera Pratap Vs Union of India

Smt Sukanya Vs State of Karnataka