Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Rangaswamy Y R Vs Ritesh Kumar Singh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Rangaswamy Y R Vs Ritesh Kumar SinghRangaswamy Y R v. Ritesh Kumar Singh

Disposed¶61

Rangaswamy Y R v. Ritesh Kumar Singh

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2026CCC/1370/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CCC No. 1370 of 2024; decided 09.04.2026; bench Anu Sivaraman (author) and Tara Vitasta Ganju; civil contempt under Sections 11 and 12, Contempt of Courts Act 1971; alleged willful disobedience of Division Bench order in WP No.18623/2022 dated 10.03.2023; KSAT had upheld dismissal as reasonable, proper and proportionate; writ allowed setting aside Tribunal order with liberty to State per WP No.14652/2022 (paras 18-19; Application Nos.5702-5708/2021 dated 25.01.2022); complainant claimed no specific allegations against him and sought reinstatement; non-compliance contention rejected; review petition left open; contempt case closed; advocates Pratheep K. C. (complainant) and Kamroz Khan AGA (State).

What did the court decide?

The contention that there is non-compliance of the directions of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No.18623/2022 cannot be accepted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether there was willful disobedience / non-compliance by the accused of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.18623/2022 dated 10.03.2023, justifying initiation of contempt proceedings. +1 more

Court's answer

The contention that there is non-compliance of the directions of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No.18623/2022 cannot be accepted.

Ratio / Principle

The contentions of the parties (including on reinstatement) are left open to be decided in the review petition the complainant intends to file; without expressing any view on such contentions, the Contempt of Court case is closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 11 and 12 — Civil Contempt Petition (CCC No. 1370 of 2024) filed by a dismissed Assistant Higher Primary School Teacher alleging willful disobedience of the Division Bench order in W.P. No.18623/2022 dated 10.03.2023, whereby the KSAT order upholding his dismissal was set aside with liberty reserved to the State (as in W.P. No.14652/2022) to conduct an enquiry against persons against whom allegations had been made — Complainant contended that no specific allegations were made against him and that he ought to have been reinstated — Held: the contention of non-compliance of the Division Bench directions cannot be accepted — Complainant stated his intention to file a review petition; contentions of the parties left open to be decided therein without expressing any view — Contempt of Court case closed.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19724-DB CCC No. 1370 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1370 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

RANGASWAMY Y R

S/O RANGASHETTY

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

WORKED AS ASSISTANT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL

TEACHER

GULUVIN ATTIGUPPE K R NAGARA TALUK R/AT NO. 79/8, ARKANATHA MAIN ROAD NEAR KUMBARA RAMAMANDIRA

K R NAGARA TALUK, MYSORE 571602

Digitally signed by RAKSHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K. C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

RITESH KUMAR SINGH

…COMPLAINANT

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001

R KRISHNAPPA BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19724-DB CCC No. 1370 of 2024

HC-KAR

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TALUK ZONE, MYSORE 01

S T JAVAREGOWDA

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMN) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MYSORE 01

…ACCUSED

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KAMROZ KHAN, AGA)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEIDNE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP NO.18623/2022 DATED 10.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19724-DB CCC No. 1370 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant had been dismissed from service. He had challenged the dismissal before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). Looking to the nature and gravity of the charge proved against the applicants, the KSAT held that the penalty of dismissal from service was reasonable, proper and proportionate. The applications were dismissed holding that there was no merit.

The writ petition filed by the complainant had been allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal was set-aside, however, reserving similar liberty to the State as stated in the Writ Petition No.14652/2022 and connected matters. The liberty granted therein was to the Government to conduct an enquiry insofar as the persons against whom allegations had been made were concerned.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the complainant is a person against whom no such specific allegations were made and that therefore, he ought to have been reinstated in service. The direction of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.18623/2022 (SKSAT) and connected cases, reads as follows:-

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19724-DB CCC No. 1370 of 2024

HC-KAR

"3. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.14652/2022 and connected matters and the observations made therein, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders passed by this Tribunal is set-aside by reserving similar liberty to the State as stated in W.P.No.14652/2022 and connected matters.”

Writ Petition No.14652/2022 was disposed of as

follows:

"18. We are unable to appreciate the conduct of the petitioners/State. The action is contrary to its own Notification noted supra. Without going into the legality of both the entrustment order and the charge memo, we proceed to uphold the order of the Tribunal in W.P.Nos.14652/2022, 135/2023 and 24830/2022 quashing the impugned orders of the Government and the writ petitions are hereby rejected.

19. Liberty is reserved to the State to re-do the exercise in consonance with the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph No.7 of its order dated 25.01.2022 in Application Nos.5702-5708/2021 and as re-iterated and upheld by this Court in paragraph No.17 of this order."

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention that there is non compliance of the directions of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No.18623/2022, cannot be accepted.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19724-DB CCC No. 1370 of 2024

HC-KAR

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that he intends to file a review petition in the writ petition. Leaving open the contentions of the parties to be decided in the review petition but without expressing any view on such contentions, the Contempt of Court case is closed .

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

RAK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether there was willful disobedience / non-compliance by the accused of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.18623/2022 dated 10.03.2023, justifying initiation of contempt proceedings.¶36
The court held
The contention that there is non-compliance of the directions of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No.18623/2022 cannot be accepted.ratio¶57
2.
Whether the complainant, against whom no specific allegations were made, ought to have been reinstated in service pursuant to the liberty reserved in W.P. No.18623/2022 / W.P. No.14652/2022 (contention raised by counsel and left open for the review petition).medium confidence¶48
The court held
The contentions of the parties (including on reinstatement) are left open to be decided in the review petition the complainant intends to file; without expressing any view on such contentions, the Contempt of Court case is closed.ratio¶61

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 11 and 12¶36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Complainant was dismissed from service; he challenged the dismissal before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), which held the penalty of dismissal reasonable, proper and proportionate and dismissed his applications.¶46
Prior proceeding
The complainant's writ petition was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside, reserving similar liberty to the State as stated in Writ Petition No.14652/2022 and connected matters.¶47
Prior proceeding
Direction of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.18623/2022 (SKSAT) and connected cases: writ petitions allowed and Tribunal orders set aside, reserving similar liberty to the State as stated in W.P. No.14652/2022.¶52
Prior proceeding
W.P. No.14652/2022 (with W.P.Nos.135/2023 and 24830/2022): the court upheld the Tribunal's orders quashing the impugned orders of the Government and rejected the writ petitions.¶55
Prior proceeding
Liberty was reserved to the State to redo the exercise in consonance with the Tribunal's observations in paragraph No.7 of its order dated 25.01.2022 in Application Nos.5702-5708/2021, as reiterated in paragraph No.17.¶56

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Rangaswamy Y R (S/o Rangashetty)¶10
Pratheep K. C.
respondent
Ritesh Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary, Department of Primary and Secondary Education, State of Karnataka¶20
Kamroz Khan
respondent
R Krishnappa, Block Education Officer, Department of Public Instruction, Taluk Zone, Mysore 01¶25
Kamroz Khan
respondent
S T Javaregowda, Deputy Director of Public Instruction (Admn) and Disciplinary Authority, Department of Public Instruction, Mysore 01¶30
Kamroz Khan
respondent
The State of Karnataka, Department of Primary and Secondary Education, rep. by its Secretary¶33
Kamroz Khan

Coram

AI extract

Anu Sivaramanauthor¶44
Tara Vitasta Ganjumember¶39

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 9 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 17 Dec 2024
Case no.: CCC/1370/2024
CNR: KAHC010727332024
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: Anu Sivaraman Tara Vitasta Ganju
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Civil Contempt Petition (CCC)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Anu Sivaraman Tara Vitasta Ganju

Angelo R Constantino Vs Nil
8 Apr 2026
Smt Vanajakshi Vs S Mahesh
8 Apr 2026
Sri Revanna Vs Smt Thayamma
8 Apr 2026
Hemaraj K Jain Vs the Special Land Acquisition OFFICER-02
9 Apr 2026
Manjunatha K Vs Ritesh Kumar Singh
9 Apr 2026
Suresh H C Vs Ritesh Kumar Singh
9 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Rangaswamy Y R v. Ritesh Kumar Singh, CCC/1370/2024 (KA), decided on 9 April 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 11 and 12

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Complainant was dismissed from service; he challenged the dismissal before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), which held the penalty of dismissal reasonable, proper and proportionate and dismissed his applications.
The complainant's writ petition was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside, reserving similar liberty to the State as stated in Writ Petition No.14652/2022 and connected matters.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju

Parties & counsel