Sri.Rajakumar S Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri.Rajakumar S Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary proceedings, including the enquiry and audit, suffer from procedural infirmities amounting to violation of natural justice? +3 more

Court's answer

Point (i): Although S.246 mandates communication of audit objections and the officer's right to respond, the audit findings formed part of the enquiry and were scrutinised through witness depositions; the petitioner had full notice of the charges and actively participated; the mere absence of a formal opportunity to respond to audit objections before issuance of the charge memo does not render the entire proceedings void.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was accorded full opportunity to submit documents and cross-examine witnesses; his claim that his documentary evidence was not considered is unsubstantiated, as he had ample opportunity to bring the alleged procedural lapses to the notice of the enquiry officer or the appellate authority.

Key takeaways

Applying the judicial-review parameters laid down in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, on perusal of the entire records and the findings of the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority, appellate authority and KSAT, no material irregularity or perversity is found in the enquiry proceedings.ratio¶17
Misappropriation of Government funds is duly proved, as seen from the findings of the authorities concerned, particularly the audit report; therefore no factual or legal error is found in the finding of guilt on the said charges.ratio¶17
Compulsory retirement is a severe measure imposed when charges stand proved, and cannot be interfered with unless it shocks the conscience of the Court or is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved; since the charges involved financial mismanagement and improper record keeping striking at the core of administrative accountability, the penalty imposed cannot be considered excessive.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench; oral order per Ramachandra D. Huddar J) dismisses a writ petition under Articles 226/227 filed by a Grade-II Secretary of Zilla Panchayath, Mysore, compulsorily retired by order dated 30.10.2018 (confirmed, with recovery reduced to Rs.4,73,518/-, by appellate order dated 12.07.2019), challenging the KSAT's order dated 06.12.2022 in Application No.2295/2020. Held: (1) non-compliance, if any, with the audit-response mechanism under S.246, Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, before issuance of the charge memo does not vitiate the proceedings where the officer had full notice and actively participated in the enquiry; (2) the enquiry findings rested on some evidence and were neither perverse nor unsupported, misappropriation of Government funds being duly proved; (3) compulsory retirement, a severe penalty, is not disproportionate where proved charges involve financial mismanagement striking at administrative accountability, interference being warranted only if the punishment shocks the conscience or is wholly disproportionate; (4) the Lokayukta's recommendation that the charges were not substantiated is not binding on the disciplinary authority, whose decision rests on independent evaluation of the enquiry report; and (5) the KSAT's order is legally sustainable. Following the parameters of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the petition was dismissed with costs made easy.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 35179 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAJAKUMAR S S/O LATE SANNABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS GRADE-II SECRETARY (UNDER COMPULSORY RETIREMENT) SAMPAHALLI, GORAVALE POST MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT MULTISTOREYED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH NEAR DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, MYSORE-570 005

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (DEVELOPMENT) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH SECRETARIES, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH MYSORE, NEAR DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE COURT MYSORE-570 005

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.2295/2020 DATED 06.12.2022 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT IN No. CCA/36-2014-15/14091 DATED 30.10.2018 (ANNEXURE-A12 OF ANNEXURE-A) AND ORDER No. CCA/36-2014-15 (BHAGA) MEELMANAVI/14091 DATED 12.07.2019 (ANNEXURE-A15 OF ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 3 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER AS GRADE-II SECRETARY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

The petitioner Sri Rajakumar S., S/o. of Late

Sannaboraiah has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 6.12.2022 (Annexure-G) passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `KSAT') in his application No.2295/2020 challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, which culminated in an order of his compulsory retirement dated 30.10.2018 passed by the disciplinary authority and a subsequent appellate order dated 12.07.2019 whereby, the punishment was confirmed with a partial modification regarding the recovery of the amount.

By filing this petition, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash both the impugned orders and also seeks a direction of his reinstatement into the service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner entered Government service on

compassionate grounds and was appointed as a Grade-II Secretary in the office of Zilla Panchayath, Mysore on 23.12.2000. He served the said Department in various capacities including incharge Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) at Kaliyur Grama Panchayath during the period commencing from 02.07.2012 to 31.12.2013. It is his specific assertion that, during his tenure as in-charge PDO, the local Audit Circle, Mysore conducted an audit for the financial year 2012-12 and 2013-14. Based upon the said audit, certain objections were raised indicating the alleged financial irregularities and administrative lapses during that period. He specifically alleges that:

The audit was conducted unilaterally in

gross violation of mandatory provisions Section 246(6) and (7) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

No notice or opportunity was provided to the

petitioner to submit his response/remarks to the audit objections or to take remedial action prior to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

The entire disciplinary action was based

solely on the audit report without any independent corroboration.

According to him, pursuant to the said audit report, a charge memo dated 11.03.2016 was issued against him setting out in all eight (8) charges relating to procedural and financial irregularities. The petitioner submitted detailed reply/remarks dated 19/21.3.2016. An enquiry was conducted by the retired District Judge acting

as an Enquiry Officer. During the proceedings, the statements of five audit officials were recorded. He specifically alleges that, his request to produce documentary evidence including vouchers and cash books

was not adequately considered by the enquiry officer. No findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer on his

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

documentary evidence so produced by way of rebuttal evidence.

It is alleged that, based on the said enquiry officer's report dated 29.8.2017, in which, it was held, that charge no.1 is partly proved and charge nos. 3 to 6 and 8

are proved. The disciplinary authority passed an order dated 30.10.2018 imposing penalty of his compulsory retirement and also passed an order for recovery of Rs.10,37,359/-. The Appellate Authority, vide orders dated 12.07.2019 confirmed the penalty of compulsory

retirement, but, reduced the recovery to Rs.4,73,518/-.

He states that, his application before the KSAT

was dismissed though, he alleged about the vitiating of the procedural irregularities, so also exparte audit and disproportionate punishment. The said order of the KSAT is illegal.

Per contra, it is the contention of the respondents that, because of the proof of charges leveled

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

against him, as there is a misappropriation of funds of the State, the enquiry officer has rightly given the findings on charges which are proved based upon the evidence of witnesses. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate authority have rightly concluded and passed the order of compulsory retirement and for recovery of the amount.

The arguments of the counsel for the petitioner:

The audit process failed to comply with the

provisions of the Act which clearly mandates that objections shall be communicated to the officers concerned who shall be given an opportunity to furnish an explanation or comply with the objections.

The audit was conducted unilaterally without

involving the petitioner or giving him a chance to rectify or clarify the purported irregularities. The Enquiry Officer almost exclusively relied on the audit report and testimonies of audit officials. The Enquiry Officer failed to consider the petitioner's documentary evidence, such as cash books, expenditure vouchers and other primary

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

records, thereby, the enquiry officer has denied the meaningful opportunity to the petitioner to defend. This approach has violated the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing and adjudication based on the totality of evidence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner

Sri Nagarajappa, in support of his submission, places reliance on the following judicial precedents:

(i) Palakshaiah vs. Secretary, Dept. of Education and Ors,- 1993 K.S.L.J. 388.

(ii) Shivananda vs. State,- 1993 K.S.L.J. 977 (iii) Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B., (1970) 3 SCC 548

Placing reliance upon these judgments, it is

submitted that, audit objections cannot be treated as conclusive proof of guilt unless verified and substantiated through proper procedure. It is further submitted that, vague charges without clarity on allegations deprive the accused of fair opportunity and vitiate the entire enquiry

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

as per the decision of the Apex Court supra . He further submits that, even if there were minor procedural lapses, there was no element of misappropriation or fraud. As such, it is submitted, the imposition of compulsory retirement which is a major penalty is grossly disproportionate.

It is further submitted that, Lokayukta of Karnataka in its recommendation dated 25.2.2022, concluded that, charges were not substantiated and the disciplinary proceedings were not justified. Therefore, the punishment deserves to be revoked. By contending all these aspects, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

Arguments of the counsel for the respondents;

Learned Sri Vikas Rojipura, AGA appearing for respondent no.1 justified the disciplinary action by submitting as under:

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

(a) The enquiry was conducted by a legally trained and independent authority (retd.District Judge) who ensured compliance with the principles of natural justice.

(b) The petitioner was served with charge memo, was provided with adequate time to reply, he was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and full opportunity was provided to present his evidence.

(c) The Enquiry Officer's conclusions were based on both oral depositions and documentary records and the petitioner has failed to discharge his burden of rebuttal despite ample opportunity.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and assert that, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot function as an appellate authority and re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are shown to be perverse, mala fide or unsupported by any evidence. He would further submit that, the

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

Lokayukta's opinion is advisory in nature and not binding on the disciplinary authority. The decision to compulsorily retire was taken independently based on the materials available on record. The learned AGA prays to dismiss the petition.

In view of these rival submissions of both the sides, the points that are to be considered in this petition are as under:

(i) Whether the disciplinary proceedings' including the enquiry and audit suffers from procedural infirmities amounting to violation of natural justice?

(ii) Whether the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse or unsupported by evidence?

(iii) Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner is, disproportionate to the charges established?

(iv) Whether the KSATs order is legally sustainable in view of the above findings?

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

Point Nos. (i) to (iv) are discussed together:

Section 246 of the Act mandates a structured audit mechanism, including the communication of audit objections and the officer's right to respond. While the petitioner asserts non-compliance of the same, the record reveals that, the audit findings were part of the enquiry and subjected to scrutiny through witness depositions. The petitioner had full notice of the charges leveled against him and has actively participated in the enquiry. The mere absence of formal opportunity to respond to audit objections before issuance of the charge memo does not render the entire proceedings void as per the evidence placed on record by the respondents.

It is evident that, the petitioner was accorded full opportunity to submit documents and cross-examine the witnesses. There is no material to show that, the enquiry officers summarily rejected the petitioner's evidence or denied any procedural rights. His claim that,

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

his documents were not considered appears to be unsubstantiated particularly, because, he had given ample opportunity to bring such alleged procedural lapses to the notice of enquiry officer or the appellate Authority.

In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran,

reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is confined to examining:

(i) Whether there is violation of natural justice?

(ii) Whether findings are based on no-evidence?

(iii) Whether findings are perverse?

(iv) Whether the punishment is disproportionate?

Applying these principles, on perusal of the

entire records, as well as findings of the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and appellate authority and KSAT, we find, no material irregularity or perversity in the enquiry proceedings. The conclusion of the enquiry officer

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

is based on some evidence and cannot be termed unreasonable or illegal. There is misappropriate of funds of

the Government which is duly proved as could be seen from the findings of the authorities concerned particularly audit report. Therefore, we do not find any factual or legal error with regard to finding guilty of the petitioner of the said charges.

Sofaras, penalty is concerned, the authority has imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. It is a severe measure. Such a punishment is imposed if such charges are proved. Such a punishment cannot be interfered with unless it 'shocks the conscience' of the Court or is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The charges involve the financial mismanagement and improper record keeping which strike at the core of the administrative accountability, therefore, penalty imposed cannot considered as excessive. The Lokayukta recommendation is not binding on disciplinary authority. The decision taken by the respondents was based on the

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13957-DB WP No. 35179 of 2024

independent evaluation of the enquiry report and cannot

be overridden solely on the basis of a contrary opinion expressed by another authority. Therefore, we find that, there are no compelling reasons to interfere with the wellreasoned and legally sound order passed by the 'KSAT'. It has rightly upheld the principles of administrative law and judicial review. The present contentions of the petitioner regarding procedural irregularity, evidentiary perversity and disproportionality in punishment are devoid of merit and are liable to be rejected. Consequentially, writ petition

is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is dismissed .

(ii) Costs made easy.

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

SK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16