Allowed¶72

M R Sadhashivappa v. the Director (a and Hr)

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2025WP/25502/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), WP 25502/2022 (S-RES), decided 13.10.2025, Ashok S. Kinagi J.: memorandum of charges dated 19.08.2022 (Annexure-G) against Deputy Controller of Accounts (IA), KPTCL, set aside as arbitrary and erroneous; preliminary enquiry report 23.10.2020 (Annexure-E) had no allegation against petitioner; audit-manual duties limited to numerical-ledger review and 10% random store-balance check; petitioner's verification report accepted, no shortage or loss found; Articles 226 and 227; service/disciplinary proceedings; writ of certiorari and mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned memorandum of charges vide Annexure-G, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, set aside; pending IAs do not survive for consideration. ¶72

M R Sadhashivappa Vs the Director (a and Hr) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the impugned memorandum of charges vide Annexure-G, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, set aside; pending IAs do not survive for consideration.

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the memorandum of charges dated 19.08.2022 (Annexure-G) issued against the petitioner ought to be quashed/set aside, given that the preliminary enquiry report disclosed no allegation against him. +1 more

¶57

Court's answer

The preliminary enquiry report dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure-E) does not disclose any allegation against the petitioner; the allegations therein are against three officials.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

As per the audit manual produced by the petitioner, the duty of the Accounts Officer was only to check/review the numerical ledgers so as to ascertain that the postings were up to date.

¶9

Key takeaways

The audit manual prescribed a random check of store balances limited to 10% of the items of materials, falling within the stores-inspection duty of the Assistant Accounts Officer.ratio¶62
The report submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the concerned Authority, duly checked and accepted by the Head of the Circle, and no shortage or loss of materials was found.ratio¶66
The memorandum of charges was issued by the respondents without considering the petitioner's accepted report and the preliminary report, and is contrary to both.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, single Bench (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.), Oral Order dated 13.10.2025 in WP No. 25502 of 2022 (S-RES), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Deputy Controller of Accounts (IA), KPTCL/SLDC, Bengaluru. The petitioner challenged a memorandum of charges dated 19.08.2022 (Annexure-G; numbered No.KPTCL/B94/3681/2022.23 in the prayer clause and No.KPTCL/B94/36381/2022-23 in the relief clause) issued by Respondent No.1 (Director (A & HR), KPTCL), seeking certiorari quashing it insofar as it related to him and mandamus to Respondent No.2 to accept his reply dated 01.09.2022 (Annexure-H). The Court recorded that a preliminary enquiry ordered on an audit objection produced a report dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure-E) containing no allegation against the petitioner, the allegations being against three officials; that per the Corporation's audit manual the petitioner's duty was confined to stores-inspection functions — review of numerical ledgers and a random check of 10% of store balances; and that his physical-verification report was accepted by the concerned Authority and the Head of the Circle, finding no shortage or loss of materials. Holding issuance of the memorandum without considering these materials to be 'arbitrary and erroneous', the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned memorandum of charges (Annexure-G) insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and recorded that pending IAs do not survive. Respondents did not file a statement of objections.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 25502 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M R SADHASHIVAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

WORKING AS DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS (IA) KPTCL, SLDC ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 009 …PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶14

THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR) KPTCL KAVERI BHAVANA BANGALORE 560001.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE GENERAL MANAGER (HRD)

¶18

CESC

¶19

CORPORATE OFFICE, # 29, KAVERI BANK ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE HINAKAL

¶20

MYSORE 570017

¶21

THE CHIEF GENRAL MAANGER (IA) CESC, CORPORATE OFFICE NO #29 KAVERI BANK, ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE HINAKAL, MYSORE 570017

¶22

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) CESC, CIRCLE OFFICE HASSAN, SANTHEPETE HASSAN 573201

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT/MISS RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE BEING NO.KPTCL/B94/3681/2022.23 DATED 19.08.2022,ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION ONLY IN SO FAR ITS RELATES TO THE PETITIONER CONCERNED AND

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

DIRECTING THE R2 ACCEPT AND CONSIDERED THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DROP ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

¶34

following reliefs:

¶35

"1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned memorandum of charge bearing No.KPTCL/B94/36381/2022-23 dated 19.08.2022, issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-G to the writ petition, only in so for as its relates to the petitioner is concerned.

¶36

2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 accept and consider the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 01.09.2022 vide Annexure-H to the writ petition and consequently to drop all further proceedings in the matter.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

3. Pass any other appropriate order/orders, writ, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶40

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶41

2.1. The petitioner is working in the respondentCorporation since 1987 and has been discharging the duties with sincerity and honesty without giving the scope to any kind of allegation. Considering his unblemished record of service, he was promoted from time to time and presently is discharging the work as a Deputy Controller of Accounts. Respondent No.1, purely on a wrong and misleading report, had issued a memorandum of charge sheet dated 19.08.2022 to the petitioner, and three other Officials, who are in charge of the stores, and made certain charges of which no way related to the petitioner. The loss, if any, in the stores is attributable to the four officials who are in charge of the management, supervision and control of the store materials. The petitioner is an odd

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

man to the stores and his duty is only to verify on random basis or 10% of the materials, and to check the ledger entries. The report submitted by the petitioner after physical verification of the materials, and ledger entries was duly accepted. After the report submitted by the petitioner technically qualified, Assistant Executive Engineer had also conducted 100% physical verification of the material along with the ledger balance and found that there was no shortage or loss of materials. The said report was duly checked and accepted by the head of the circle. This has been done in accordance with the mandatory provisions contained in the accounts manual. In spite of this, respondent No.1, without any just and proper reasons, without any prima facie case against the petitioner, had blindly and mechanically with the bias and prejudice, had issued a memorandum of charges dated 19.08.2022. The petitioner, aggrieved by the issuance of memorandum of charges dated 19.08.2022, filed this writ petition.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The respondents, in spite of granting sufficient

¶48

opportunity, have not filed a statement of objections.

¶49

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶50

petitioner and, the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the memorandum of charges has been issued against the preliminary enquiry report. He submits that, from the perusal of the preliminary enquiry report, there is no allegation against the petitioner. The allegations are against the other three Officials. Without considering the contents of the preliminary enquiry report, the respondents have issued memorandum of charges. The said memorandum of charges is contrary to the contents of the preliminary enquiry report. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature and further, insofar as allegations are

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

concerned, that can be decided only after a full-fledged enquiry. He submits that, though there is no allegation against the petitioner in the preliminary enquiry report, however, the respondents have issued the memorandum of charges on the materials. Hence, the action of the respondents in issuing the memorandum of charges is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶56

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶57

There is no dispute that the petitioner was working in the respondent-Corporation and he was discharging his duty as a Deputy Controller of Accounts. Respondent No.1 based on the audit objection, ordered for a preliminary enquiry. The preliminary enquiry report dated 23.10.2020 was submitted and marked as Annexure-E. From perusal of the preliminary enquiry report, it does not disclose any allegation against the petitioner. However, there are allegations against the

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

three Officials. The respondents, without considering the preliminary enquiry report, has issued memorandum of charges to the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the audit manual of the respondent-Corporation, which discloses that, the duty of the Assistant Account Officer is only regarding to the stores inspection:

¶61

(a) General review of numerical ledgers so as to ascertain that the postings are up to date.

¶62

(b) Random check of store balances of 10% of the items of materials. Enter counted balance of the counting sheets and obtain signature of the Store Keeper. Items to be checked should include essential line materials, iron, cement, lamps, tubelights, insulated wires, fuse wires, torch cells, silver lead and soldering lead, pipes of different varieties, copper conductor and T and P materials.

¶63

(c) Entered counted balance in the respective ledger (in words and with dated initials) and ledger balances on the counting sheets, workout differences between ledger balance and counted balance and enter on counting sheets.

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40385 WP No. 25502 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

From the perusal of the duties of the Accounts Officer, the duty of the Accounts Officer is only to check the numerical or to review the numerical ledgers so as to ascertain the postings are upto date, and also enter counted balance of counting sheets, and obtain signature of the Store Keeper. The petitioner has submitted the report to the concerned Authority. The concerned Authority accepted the report submitted by the petitioner, and did not find any shortage or loss of materials. The said report was duly checked, and accepted by the Head of the Circle. Without considering the said aspect, the memorandum of charges was issued by the respondents and it is contrary to the report submitted by the petitioner, and also preliminary report. Thus, the memorandum of charges issued by the respondents is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on this ground, the impugned memorandum of charges is liable to be set aside.

¶67