Dismissed¶¶66

Smt Surekha v. State of Karnataka

Departmental enquiry – Woman Police Constable

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/5043/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Woman Police Constable (W.P.C No.750, Hosanagara Police Station) against penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect for obtaining Karnataka Housing Board site allotment by claiming to be a Journalist; scope of Article 226 interference in departmental enquiry (incompetent authority / no evidence / violation of natural justice); Rule 6, Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rule, 1965; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal Application No.7023/2020; proportionality of punishment in police disciplinary proceedings; writ petition rejected.

What did the court decide?

Having heard counsel and perused the writ papers, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of penalty or with the order passed by the Tribunal. ¶¶48

Smt Surekha Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶66

Issue for consideration

What is the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a penalty imposed in departmental enquiry proceedings? +2 more

¶¶49

Court's answer

Having heard counsel and perused the writ papers, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of penalty or with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶¶48

Ratio / Principle

In departmental enquiry proceedings, the scope of interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited.

¶¶49

Key takeaways

The Court may interfere with the penalty only if it is shown that the penalty was imposed by an incompetent authority, or that it is a case of no evidence, or that the order of penalty is the result of violation of natural justice.ratio¶¶52
In the instant case none of the limited grounds for interference is made out: it is not the petitioner's case that the penalty was imposed by an incompetent authority, that it is a case of no evidence, or that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.ratio¶¶53
The charge of obtaining allotment of the KHB site by misrepresentation was amply proved: the disciplinary authority examined five witnesses and marked 15 documents; the material on record is more than sufficient and it is not a case of no evidence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Departmental enquiry – Woman Police Constable – punishment of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect for obtaining allotment of Karnataka Housing Board Site No.162 MIG by misrepresenting that she was a Journalist – writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 against the Tribunal's refusal to quash the penalty – HELD: scope of interference under Article 226 in departmental enquiries is very limited, confined to cases where the penalty is imposed by an incompetent authority, where there is no evidence, or where the order results from violation of natural justice – charge amply proved by five witnesses and 15 documents; not a case of no evidence – petitioner given ample opportunity at every stage (reply to charge memo, cross-examination, enquiry report with second show-cause notice); no violation of natural justice – for a member of a disciplined police force, punishment of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect is not harsh; the nature and gravity of the charge deserved higher punishment – writ petition rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.5043 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SUREKHA, W/O SUDHAKARA M.N, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE, W.P.C NO.750, HOSANAGARA POLICE STATION, HOSANAGARA, TQ, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 418.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ FOR SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR K.,ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by G SHREERAKSHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, EAST ZONE, DAVANAGERE - 560 001.

¶17

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. HARISH A.S, AGA)

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 24.08.2013 PASSED BY THE R-3 HERE IN, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-9 AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD 04.08.2018 MADE IN NO.31/APPEAL/SIBANDI-2/2013-14 OB 88/2018-19 PASSED BY THE R-2 HERE IN, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE APPLICANT VIDE ANNX-13 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶27

Petitioner, aggrieved by Order dated 29.12.2021 in Application No.7023/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal') is before this Court in this petition where the petitioner's prayer to quash order of penalty dated 24.08.2013 imposed by Respondent No.3-Superintendent of Police, Shivamogga District, is rejected.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

While the petitioner was working as Woman Police Constable at Hosanagara Police Station, Shivamogga District, Respondent No.3 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing show-cause notice dated 21.05.2012 in terms of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rule, 1965, alleging that by furnishing false information and claiming that she is a Journalist, obtained allotment of Site No.162 MIG reserved for Shivamogga Somonakoppa Journalist and Employees News Agency from Karnataka Housing Board. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by examining five witnesses and marking 15 documents on behalf of the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner enclosing enquiry report. On submission of the reply and on consideration of the entire enquiry material, 3^rd respondent/disciplinary authority imposed punishment of withholding three annual

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

increments with cumulative effect by order dated 24.08.2023. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent by order dated 06.03.2014, rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision, which also came to be rejected under order dated 04.08.2015. Questioning the order of penalty as well as appellate order, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above said application. The Tribunal, on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order of penalty holding that it is not a case of no evidence and it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is perverse in nature. Questioning the order of the Disciplinary authority as well as the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Basavaraj, for Sri.Chandrashekar.K, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri.Harisha.A.S, for respondent.

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

In addition to the grounds urged in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶38

that the finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority are opposed to the material on record. Learned counsel submits that

¶39

there is no sufficient evidence to prove the charge.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the name of petitioner, somebody have filed application and the application for allotment of site as Journalist is not filed by the petitioner.

¶41

Learned counsel would submit that the impugned

¶42

order of penalty came to be passed without appreciating the defence taken by the petitioner and the punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect is harsh. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶43

Per contra, learned AGA would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that the

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

evidence on record would prove the charge. When the charges are proved by evidence on record, this Court normally would not interfere with the same.

¶47

Learned AGA would further submit that the petitioner being employed in disciplined Police Force could not have misrepresented before the KHB for allotment of the site. The allegation against the petitioner that she claimed to be a Journalist for allotment and obtained allotment of site which amounts to misconduct and cannot be condoned. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of penalty as well as impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶49

In a departmental enquiry proceedings, the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. This Court could

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

interfere with the penalty only if it is shown that the penalty imposed is by an incompetent authority or that it is a case of no evidence or that the order of penalty is the result of violation of natural justice.

¶53

In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the penalty is imposed by incompetent authority or that it is a case of no evidence or that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶54

To prove the charge against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has examined five witnesses and 15 documents are marked. The allegation against the petitioner is that by producing false documents claiming that she is working as DTP operator in Shivamogga Somonakoppa Journalist and Employees News Agency applied for site to the KHB and the KHB considered the documents submitted by her, allotted site which was to be allotted to Journalist society. The petitioner obtained allotment of site by totally misrepresenting the KHB. The

¶55

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

evidence on record has amply proved the charge. The material on record are more than sufficient to prove the case and at the same time, it cannot be considered as case of no evidence.

¶58

Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the order of penalty is the result of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner is given ample opportunity at every stage of the enquiry. He was given time to submit his reply to the charge memo and he was also given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the Enquiry report was also made available to the petitioner along with the second show-cause notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged charge. We are not inclined to accept the said submission. When petitioner is working in a disciplined Police force, could not

¶60

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35471-DB WP No. 5043 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

have submitted false documents for allotment of site from KHB. In fact for the proved misconduct of misrepresentation for allotment of site, the punishment of withholding three annual increment with cumulative effect is not harsh.

¶63