Sri Pradeep M P Vs the State of Karnataka

PRESENTLY WORKING AS A ASSISTANT HORTICULTURE OFFICER, O/O. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, PAVAGADA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561202, RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, DR. RADHA KRISHNA ROAD, NEAR ACHARYA VIDYA PEETHA, SARASWATHIPURAM, TUMAKURU-572105.

¶16

(BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LALBAGH, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶24

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶25

SRI A.T RANGADASAPPA, ENQUIRY OFFICER, EDUCATION OFFICER (EO-II), OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, TUMAKURU.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.2169/2025 DATED 27/02/2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN AN APPLICATION No.2169/2025.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶36

Heard Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶37

The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.2169/2025 is before this Court, challenging the order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (for short “the Tribunal”).

¶38

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Horticulture Officer. While he was working at Pavagada, allegations were made against him and others regarding misuse of funds in the execution of MGNREGA work in Konde Thimmanahalli Panchayat, Pavagada Taluk. The petitioner asserts that he had no role in the alleged misconduct. A preliminary enquiry was conducted. The said preliminary enquiry opined that the charges against the petitioner were not proved.

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

3.1 Subsequently, the enquiry was entrusted to the second respondent, who in turn appointed enquiry officer. An enquiry was conducted against one Sri Manjunath, Panchayat Development Officer, and others, who were issued with articles of charge. In the said enquiry, the charges against Sri Manjunath came to be dropped. The articles of charge served on the present petitioner are stated to be identical and based on similar facts.

¶42

3.2 Thereafter, the fourth respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. However, as no witnesses came forward to participate in the enquiry, the enquiry officer expressed his inability to proceed and returned the entire file. As on date, no enquiry is pending against the petitioner.

¶43

3.3 In the meanwhile, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 03.09.2019 for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture. The petitioner was found eligible for promotion. Since the said DPC was partially affected, a subsequent DPC was convened, which again recommended the petitioner for promotion. Accordingly, by

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Government Order dated 27.03.2025, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture.

¶47

3.4 However, the second respondent, by order dated 17.04.2025, kept the promotion of the petitioner in abeyance and directed that his promotion be in a sealed cover, citing pendency of disciplinary enquiry. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the application, holding that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner on account of issuance of articles of charge. It was also observed that the promotion had been granted due to confusion arising out of multiple officers having similar names.

¶48

Sri Narsimharaju, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was granted promotion on 27.03.2025, which was subsequently kept in abeyance by order dated 17.04.2025. He further submits that the articles of charge were issued as early as 09.09.2014 and that the DPC held on 03.09.2019 had recommended the petitioner for promotion. It is also contended that in a subsequent DPC, the

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

petitioner was again recommended, culminating in the

¶53

promotion order dated 27.03.2025.

¶54

4.1 It is submitted that though disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the enquiry has not been concluded even after more than 16 years. The enquiry officer, having expressed his inability to proceed due to non-cooperation of witnesses, returned the file on 19.07.2024. Even thereafter, no steps have been taken by the respondents to proceed with or conclude the enquiry. It is therefore contended that such inordinate delay ought not to prejudice the petitioner’s right to promotion.

¶55

4.2 It is further submitted that in respect of the Panchayat Development Officer, who was issued with identical articles of charge, the proceedings have culminated in exoneration. Hence, the petitioner, who stands on a similar or better footing, ought not to be denied promotion.

¶56

Per contra , Sri V. Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that though the DPC had considered the petitioner’s name, the promotion order was issued due to oversight arising

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

from multiple officers having similar names. Upon noticing the error, the promotion was kept in abeyance and the sealed cover procedure was invoked. It is further submitted that the enquiry is pending and would be proceeded with within a reasonable time. He contends that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application.

¶60

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the Articles of Charge against the petitioner were issued on 09.09.2014. Even as on date, the disciplinary proceedings have not reached their logical conclusion. The record further indicates that the Inquiry Officer expressed his inability to proceed with the enquiry on account of non-cooperation of witnesses and returned the file on 19.07.2024. Thereafter, no further progress has been made in the enquiry.

¶61

6.1 It is also not in dispute that the DPC, in its meetings held on 03.03.2019 and 01.03.2025, recommended the petitioner for promotion. Pursuant thereto, by Government Order dated 27.03.2025, the petitioner was promoted. However, the said

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

promotion was subsequently kept in abeyance and the sealed cover procedure was invoked.

¶66

6.2 The respondents have explained the circumstances under which the promotion order was issued and subsequently kept in abeyance. It is stated that there were four officers bearing similar names considered for promotion and, due to oversight, the promotion order came to be issued in favour of the petitioner despite the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Upon noticing the same, the order of abeyance was passed and the sealed cover procedure was invoked. The Tribunal has accepted the said justification and upheld the order dated 17.04.2025.

¶67

6.3 It is a settled position of law that when disciplinary proceedings are pending, consequent upon issuance of Articles of Charge, the result of the DPC is required to be kept in a sealed cover. The adoption of the sealed cover procedure by the respondent authorities is, therefore, in accordance with law.

¶68

6.4 However, in the present case, the Articles of Charge were issued as far back as on 09.09.2014. Though initially an

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

enquiry officer had opined that the charges were not proved, the respondents chose to appoint another enquiry officer. The said enquiry officer, in turn, returned the file on 19.07.2024, expressing his inability to proceed due to non-cooperation of witnesses. Since then, the enquiry has remained stagnant.

¶73

6.5 The inordinate delay in conducting and concluding the disciplinary proceedings cannot be ignored, as such delay would prejudice the petitioner’s right to be considered for promotion. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 17.04.2025 keeping the promotion of the petitioner in abeyance and invoking the sealed cover procedure.

¶74

6.6 It is, however, necessary to observe that the sealed cover procedure cannot be continued indefinitely and can operate only till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Though the enquiry has not progressed since 19.07.2024, the outcome of the enquiry would have a direct bearing on the opening of the sealed cover. Therefore, the delay on the part of the respondents in concluding the enquiry should not operate to the prejudice of the petitioner.

¶75

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:20657-DB WP No. 10528 of 2026

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

6.7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harsh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Punjab , (2017) 4 SCC 366 , to contend that in cases of delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings, the sealed cover is required to be reviewed periodically and grant appropriate relief. In the facts of the present case, and in view of the directions proposed to be issued herein, this Court is of the opinion that the said judgment does not strictly apply.

¶78

In the light of the above findings, the following order is passed:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

(i) The writ petition stands dismissed .

¶81

(ii) The respondent authorities are directed to complete the disciplinary enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶82