Dr. Jagadeesha K G, Vs Major (Retd) Siddalingayya Hiremath

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 34073 OF 2025 (S-CAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. JAGADEESHA K G, S/O. GOPAL KL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, 2^ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

DR. SHALINI RAJANEESH, W/O RAJANEESH GOEL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CHIEF SECRETARY, ROOM NO.320, 3^RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY., AG A/W SRI. RUBEN JACOB, AAG AND SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY AND SRI. RAJKUMAR,AGA)

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

MAJOR (RETD) SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH, KAS PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEUROSCIENCES, DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

RACHNA SHAH, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶19

SHASHI RANJAN KUMAR, SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLAPUR HOUSE, SHAHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110069.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 09/10/2025 AND 07/11/2025 IN CP NO.57/2017 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER CLOSING/DROPPING THE SAID CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IN CP NO.57/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶27

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

The petitioners are senior officers of the Government of Karnataka, and they have been arrayed in the contempt proceedings in CP No.57/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ‘ the 'Tribunal' ]. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Tribunal's orders dated 09.10.2025 and 07.11.2025. The details of the Tribunal’s impugned orders can be stated thus;

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

[A] The order dated 09.10.2025 : The Tribunal

¶36

has opined that the compliance affidavit filed by

¶37

the second petitioner [ along with a copy of the State Government’s order dated 08.10.2025 ]

¶38

does not comply with its order dated 01.02.2017 as confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.11337/2017. The Tribunal has referred to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition [C] No.15887/2017 by the Apex Court. The Tribunal has recorded [as a clarification] that fixing the Deemed Date under the Fourth Proviso to Regulation 5[2] of the Indian Administrative Service [Appointment by Promotion] Regulations, 1955 [for short, ' 1955 Regulations' ] does not comply with the directions.

¶39

[B] The order dated 07.11.2025 : The Tribunal's

¶40

order is on the petitioners’ applications in MA Nos.470/2025 and 469/2025. If one application

¶41

is for early hearing, and the other application is

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

for recalling the order dated 09.10.2025. The Tribunal has observed that it has repeatedly rejected the statement [ on behalf of the State Government ] that its order is complied with, and despite such rejection, "mischievous petitions" are filed, which cannot be countenanced. The Tribunal has rejected these applications directing the petitioners to be present for framing charges.

¶45

Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, the learned Advocate General who is assisted by Mr. Reuben Jacob [ a learned Additional Advocate General ] for the petitioners, and Mr. Gurudev Gachchinamath, the learned counsel for the first respondent, are heard on whether this Court must interfere with the Tribunal’s impugned orders. Both sides seek to elaborate on whether there is due compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 01.02.2017. Sri Shashikiran Shetty canvassing that the benefit of the Fourth Proviso to

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Regulation 5(2) of the 1955 Regulations is only for determining the eligibility for promotion to the IAS cadre and is not decisive for seniority and that the State Government by order dated 08.10.2025 has fixed 30.10.2000 as the Deemed Date and consequently the revised proposal is also forwarded to be considered for the Select List of 2015-2016, but Mr. Gurudev Gachchinamath refutes this assertion.

¶49

Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, on the petitioners'

¶50

grievance with the impugned orders, submits that the petitioners are called upon to be present for Framing of Charges but they have filed applications [ in MA Nos. 470/2025 and 469/2025 ] contending that the participation on their behalf in the hearing on 09.10.2025 was with the anticipation that the respondent would file objections to the compliance affidavit and the order dated 08.10.2025. The learned Advocate General submits that the petitioners, who have only been impleaded recently, must have a

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

complete opportunity of hearing even before there is an opinion on whether charges must be framed against them.

¶54

Mr. Shashikiran Shetty canvasses that with the first respondent filing a representation on 12.10.2025, the first petitioner has extended an opportunity of hearing to him, and he is issued with another Endorsement dated 29.10.2025 and that the efficacy of these proceedings must also be considered on deciding whether charges should be framed against him. Mr. Gurudev Gachchinamath, on due opportunity in the circumstance, submits that it cannot be disputed that the Tribunal has heard not just the first respondent but also on behalf of the petitioners before passing the order dated 09.10.2025.

¶55

Sri Gurudev Gachchinamath is also heard

¶56

on whether this Court must intervene to restore the

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

application in MA No. 469/2025 for due consideration because, upon the charges being framed–if framed, the petitioners will have to stand trial to meet the charges. This Court must record that the learned counsel, on instructions from the first respondent who is with him, reluctantly submits that this Court may consider extending another opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against the framing of charges.

¶60

This Court has considered the question of interference in the light of the circumstances pleaded on behalf of the petitioners for an opportunity and the submission that the petitioners, who have been impleaded at the later stage in the contempt proceedings, want to be heard again to show why charges must not be framed. This Court is of the view that another opportunity would only subserve the cause of administration of justice and not be prejudicial to the first respondent, and as such, the

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Tribunal’s order dated 07.11.2025 must be interfered with restoring the application in MA No.469/2025 for reconsideration.

¶64

Further, this Court observes that this interference renders no opinion on the rival submissions and that the Tribunal, because of this order, may defer the hearing scheduled tomorrow to another date without insisting on the petitioners’ presence and decide on the merits of the restored application. This Court also observes that the Tribunal, while considering the merits of the application in MA No.469/2025, may consider whether there must be a reiteration of the order dated 09.10.2025 as part of the opportunity of hearing before Framing of Charges. In the light of the above:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

[i] The petition is allowed in part.

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:46085-DB WP No. 34073 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

[ii] The Tribunal's order dated 07.11.2025 is interfered restoring the application in MA No.469/2025 to be reconsidered in the light of this Court's observation as against the order dated 09.10.2025.

¶71

[iii] The Tribunal is requested to defer the proceedings scheduled on 13.11.2025 without insisting upon the petitioners’ application and consider the application as aforesaid expeditiously.

¶72

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶73

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶74

nv

Dr. Jagadeesha K G, v. Major (Retd) Siddalingayya Hiremath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Jagadeesha K G, v. Major (Retd) Siddalingayya Hiremath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Udhyaman Investments Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Private Ltd.

Mr Ravindra Naik K Vs Union of India