Disposed¶51

Sri.Prashant Kumar G v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/27623/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (DB: B M Shyam Prasad & T.M. Nadaf JJ) disposes WP No. 27623 of 2025 (S-CAT) filed under Articles 226/227 by ESIC employee against CAT order in O.A. No.170/000113/2025; Tribunal had directed Appellate Authority to decide appeal dated 19.02.2025 within eight weeks and stayed Disciplinary Authority order dated 13.02.2025; appeal since decided against petitioner on 29.08.2025; petitioner left free to challenge appellate authority's order before Tribunal; ESIC (Staff and Condition of Service) Regulations 2023; articles of charges; disciplinary enquiry.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition disposed of leaving the petitioner at liberty to raise all grounds in an application before the Tribunal against the appellate authority's order dated 29.08.2025. ¶51

Sri.Prashant Kumar G Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petition disposed of leaving the petitioner at liberty to raise all grounds in an application before the Tribunal against the appellate authority's order dated 29.08.2025.

¶51

Issue for consideration

With the appellate authority having disposed of the petitioner's appeal against him during the pendency of the petition, how should the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's direction in O.A. No.170/000113/2025 be disposed of, and is the petitioner at liberty to raise all his grounds before the Tribunal against the appellate authority's order?

¶45

Court's answer

Since the appellate authority has decided against the petitioner, the petitioner must be at liberty to raise all such grounds in the application that he may file before the Tribunal against the appellate authority's order.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

On that observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S-CAT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — An ESIC employee (Assistant, SRO Mangalore, Legal Branch) challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.170/000113/2025, by which the Tribunal directed the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.2) to dispose of the applicant's appeal dated 19.02.2025 [Annexure-A11] by a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks, and ordered that till such time the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 13.02.2025 [Annexure-A10] shall not be implemented. During the pendency of the petition, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal against the petitioner by order dated 29.08.2025 (communicated 02.09.2025). Held (oral order per B M Shyam Prasad J; Coram: B M Shyam Prasad and T.M. Nadaf JJ): the petitioner must be at liberty to raise all such grounds in the application he may file before the Tribunal against the appellate authority's order; the petition stands disposed of. No question on the merits, including the grievance regarding articles of charges under the Employee State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Condition of Service) Regulations of 2023, was decided.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39781-DB WP No. 27623 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 27623 OF 2025 (S-CAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI.PRASHANTH KUMAR G S/O GANGARAJAPPA D., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ESIC, SRO MANGALORE (LEGAL BRANCH), 1^ST FLOOR, CITY POINT BUILIDNG, NEAR NAVABHARATH CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575 003.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RANGANTHA S JOIS.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶15

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:39781-DB WP No. 27623 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER (SOUTH ZONE) ESIC CORPORATION,

¶20

6^TH FLOOR, NO.10, BINNEFIELD, BINNEPETE, BENGALURU-560 0023.

¶21

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA NO.10, BINNEFIELD, BINNEPETE, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶22

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION. 1^ST FLOOR, CITY POINT BUILDING, NEAR NAVABHARATH CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575 003.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SHUBHA S., CGC FOR R1)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SAID THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND CONTRARY TO EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:39781-DB WP No. 27623 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

(STAFF AND CONDITION OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS OF 2023 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION BEFORE CAT IN OA

¶30

NO.170/000113/2025 AND TO GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT THEREINB) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTRAIN FROM CONTINUING THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES UNLESS THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES ARE ISSUED AS PER THE NEW REGULATIONS NAMELY THE EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION(STAFF AND CONDITION OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS OF 2023 STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶32

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:39781-DB WP No. 27623 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

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

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

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

¶39

The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal' ] in O.A. No.170/000113/2025, and the Tribunal's order reads as under:

¶40

'7. At this juncture, considering the totality of circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be sub-served in directing the Appellate Authority - Respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal preferred by the applicant dated 19.02.2025 [Annexure-A11] in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order in an expedite manner in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till such, time, the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.02.2025 [Annexure-A10] shall not be implemented. Ordered accordingly'.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:39781-DB WP No. 27623 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Sri Ranganatha S Jois, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt Shubha S, the learned Central Government Counsel who is on record for first respondent, are heard for final disposal with Sri Ranganath S Jois submitting that the appellate authority, during the pendency of this petition, has disposed of the appeal against the petitioner by order dated 29.08.2025 [ communicated to the petitioner on 02.09.2025 ] and that the present petition may be disposed of leaving open all questions to be considered in the application that the petitioner may file with the Tribunal as against the appellate authority's order.

¶45

This Court is of the view that if the Tribunal has called upon the appellate authority to decide on the petitioner's grievance with the outcome of the enquiry leaving open all questions and that the appellate authority has decided against the petitioner, the petitioner must be at liberty to raise all such grounds

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:39781-DB WP No. 27623 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

in the application that he may file against the

¶50

appellate authority's order. While so observing, the

¶51

petition stands disposed of.

¶52