Shri C .N Barker Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 108078 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI C.N.BARKER AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: REVENUE OFFICER, NOW WORKING AT T.M.C. ANNIGERI, TQ: ANNIGERI-582201, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. R.K.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,

¶13

BANGALORE-01.

¶14

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR

¶15

ENQUIRIES-03, OFFICE OF THE UP LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,

¶16

BANGALORE-01.

¶17

Digitallysigned byGIRIJA A.BYAHATTI GIRIJA A.BYAHATTI Location:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKADHARWADBENCHDate:2026.02.1114:46:49+0530

¶18

THE DIRECTOR FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9^TH FLOOR, VISHWAVESHWARAYYA TOWER, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ON 08.04.2021 IN NO.£ÀCE147rJAPÉ2014, VIDE ANNEXURE-J, SO FOR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

1. The petitioner, a Revenue Officer serving under the

¶28

Town Municipal Council, has approached this Court assailing the disciplinary order dated 08.04.2021 (Annexure-J) passed by the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 2005 (‘the Act’, for short), imposing the penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect and deferring the promotion for a period of four years.

¶29

2. The brief facts:

¶30

2.1. While the petitioner was serving as First Division Revenue Inspector at the Town Municipal Council, Mundargi, a complaint came to be lodged alleging that, in the course of discharge of his official duties, irregular entries were made in

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the revenue records by treating agricultural lands

¶34

as plots without lawful conversion. The allegations also involved two other municipal officials.

¶35

2.2. Based on the said complaint, a joint disciplinary enquiry was initiated by the Upalokayukta. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply.

¶36

2.3. The Upalokayukta conducted the enquiry and submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved and recommended imposition of penalty.

¶37

2.4. The State Government thereafter issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and, upon consideration of his explanation and the enquiry report, passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2021 imposing the penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

and deferring promotion for a period of four years.

¶42

2.5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶44

4. Contention of the petitioner:

¶45

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 08.04.2021 is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is argued that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the enquiry before the Lokayukta was conducted exparte and without affording the petitioner a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

4.2. It is further contended that the enquiry was initiated on the basis of a complaint by a third party and that the Lokayukta had exceeded its jurisdiction in conducting a joint enquiry against multiple officers.

¶50

4.3. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority failed to independently apply its mind and mechanically accepted the recommendations of the Upalokayukta.

¶51

4.4. It is further contended that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct and the order is liable to be interfered.

¶52

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supporting the impugned order, submits that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, issued a show cause notice, and afforded adequate opportunity to

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

submit his explanation at every stage. It is further contended that the enquiry report of the Upalokayukta is a reasoned one based on material evidence and that the Government, being the disciplinary authority, has independently considered the report and the reply submitted by the petitioner before imposing the penalty. It is further submitted that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is extremely limited and that this Court would not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions for that of the enquiry authority. Further, the punishment imposed is moderate and proportionate and does not warrant interference, particularly when no procedural illegality or perversity is demonstrated.

¶57

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

¶58

The impugned order dated 08.04.2021 has been passed by the Government pursuant to the

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

recommendations of the Upalokayukta in a joint disciplinary enquiry, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct relating to irregular revenue entries. Consequent upon acceptance of the enquiry report, the Government imposed the penalty under Rule 8(iii) and Rule 8(iiia) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

¶62

The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was

¶63

from a complaint alleging misuse of official position while discharging the duties as First Division Revenue Inspector at the Town Municipal Council, Mundargi, in relation to revenue entries treating agricultural lands as plots without lawful conversion. A joint enquiry was ordered by the Upalokayukta against the petitioner and two other officials.

¶64

Pursuant thereto, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply. The

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

enquiry was conducted by the Upalokayukta

¶69

culminated in a detailed report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. The report was forwarded to the Government along with recommendations for imposition of penalty. Thereafter, the Government issued a show cause notice and considered the reply submitted by the petitioner, before passing the final order dated 08.04.2021.

¶70

Thus, the record undisputedly discloses that the petitioner was afforded opportunity at every stage of the proceedings and that the disciplinary authority adhered to the procedure prescribed under law.

¶71

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte or that relevant material was not considered cannot be accepted. The enquiry report reflects appreciation of evidence and recording of reasons. The disciplinary authority, after

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1621 WP No. 108078 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

independent consideration, accepted the findings and imposed the penalty. The decision-making process does not suffer from any procedural infirmity, perversity, or arbitrariness.

¶76

It is also significant to note that the penalty imposed is not of dismissal or removal from service, but a measured punishment of withholding increments and deferment of promotion. The punishment is commensurate with the nature of misconduct proved and does not shock the conscience of the Court.

¶77

This Court is conscious of the settled principle that in the matters of disciplinary proceedings, the scope of judicial review is limited. This Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions merely because another view is possible. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse or the procedure vitiated by violation of statutory rules or principles of natural justice,

¶78