Dismissed¶50

The State of Karnataka v. H N Thimmeowda

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026WP/8608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC rejects State's writ petition against KSAT order quashing demotion penalty under Rule 8(v) KCS (CCA) Rules 1957; judicial review confined to verifying existence of some evidence, not re-appreciation; departmental charges proved by preponderance of probabilities; acquittal in Spl.C.C.No.197/2011 and dismissed State appeal Crl.A.No.282/2018 weighed; no witness with personal knowledge of harassment; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

This Court would not sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the order of penalty or the order of the Tribunal; the Tribunal or this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, but a duty is cast to examine whether there is some evidence to prove the charge; in departmental proceedings charges are proved by preponderance of probabilities and no strict rule of evidence applies.

The State of Karnataka Vs H N Thimmeowda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference at the hands of this Court?

¶41

Court's answer

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondent was acquitted by the Special Court on the same incidence and identical charges (judgment dated 02.12.2017 in Spl.C.C.No.197/2011), the State's appeal Crl.A.No.282/2018 was dismissed, and the Tribunal recorded that no witness deposed to having seen or having personal knowledge of the harassment of the complainant, the Court sees no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.

¶49

Key takeaways

No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal; the writ petition lacks merit and stands rejected.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State of Karnataka and the Commissioner, Department of Public Instruction (W.P.(S-KSAT) No.8608/2021) challenged the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 18.11.2019 in Application No.7869/2014, which quashed the penalty of demotion from Block Education Officer to Head Master (02.09.2014 to 31.01.2016) imposed under Rule 8(v) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 following a departmental enquiry into alleged sexual harassment of an Assistant Teacher. The Division Bench (per S.G. Pandit, J.; K.V. Aravind, J.) held that the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over penalty or Tribunal orders, but must satisfy itself that some evidence proves the charge, departmental charges being proved by preponderance of probabilities without strict rules of evidence. Noting the Tribunal's finding that no witness deposed to having seen or having personal knowledge of the harassment, the respondent's acquittal by the Special Court on 02.12.2017 in Spl.C.C.No.197/2011 on identical charges, and dismissal of the State's Crl.A.No.282/2018, the Court found no ground to interfere and rejected the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22755-DB WP No. 8608 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 8608 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU -560001.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA)

¶13

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI AND: Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H N THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. R/AT NO.70/1, GANESH RAO LAYOUT, SUBHASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H. M., ADV.)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22755-DB WP No. 8608 of 2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.7869/2014 DATED 18.11.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.11.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.7869/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The State Authorities in the Department of Public

¶24

Instructions are before this Court aggrieved by order dated 18.11.2019 in Application No.7869/2014 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) allowing respondent’s application quashing the order of penalty dated 02.09.2014 demoting respondent from the post of Block Education Officer to the post of Head Master for the period from 02.09.2014 to 31.01.2016.

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22755-DB WP No. 8608 of 2021

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate

¶28

Sri.K.R.Rajendra for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.H.M.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy for respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent while working as Block Education Officer was issued with articles of charge dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure-A1) alleging three charges; in sum and substance, allegation of sexual harassment to one Smt.Y.Ushadevi, Assistant Teacher. The respondent is said to have submitted reply to the charge memo and not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, the petitioners proceeded to conduct a departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer appointed to conduct enquiry against the respondent submitted his report dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure-A15) holding that charge No.1 is not proved and charge Nos.2 and 3 are proved. The respondent was issued with second show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The respondent submitted his reply dated

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22755-DB WP No. 8608 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

05.03.2014. The first petitioner by impugned order dated 02.09.2014 imposed punishment demoting the respondent from the cadre of Block Education Officer to the cadre of Head Master for the period from 02.09.2014 to 31.01.2016 in excise of its power under Rule 8(v) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rule’). The said order of penalty was the subject matter before the Tribunal in the above stated application and the Tribunal under impugned order quashed the order of penalty on the ground that the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the material on record thereby arrived at perverse finding. Challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal, the petitioners – State Authorities are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for petitioners would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate properly the material on record as well as the material placed before the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that the findings of the

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22755-DB WP No. 8608 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Enquiry Officer are perverse findings. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Disciplinary Authority examined as many as 9 witnesses and many of the witnesses supported the case of the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer on appreciation of the evidence and material on record had rightly held that charge Nos.2 and 3 are proved. However, the Tribunal having failed to appreciate the evidence on record, has come to a different conclusion and the Tribunal also placed reliance on the acquittal of the petitioner in criminal proceedings to come to said conclusion. It is submitted that acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not bar the Disciplinary Authority in taking different view based on the material in a departmental proceedings. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Tribunal could not have gone into the minute portion of the evidence and to re-appreciate the evidence. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶37

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22755-DB WP No. 8608 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that it is a case of no evidence and as such, the Tribunal is justified in quashing the order of penalty, moreso when the respondent is acquitted of the charges in Spl.C.C.No.187/2011 and especially when the State’s Crl.A.No.282/2018 filed by the State before this Court is dismissed. Learned counsel would further submit that none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority deposed that they have seen or having the personal knowledge of harassment of the complainant by the respondent. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to,

¶41

Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference at the hands of this Court?

¶42

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22755-DB WP No. 8608 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:

¶45

It is settled position of law that this Court would not sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the order of penalty or order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal on examination of the material and evidence of the witnesses has come to the conclusion that no witness has deposed that they have seen or having the personal knowledge of harassment of complainant by the respondent. It is true that the Tribunal or this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. However, a duty is cast upon the Tribunal or this Court as to whether there is some evidence to prove the charge. To that extent, it would be permissible to examine the evidence. Moreover, in the departmental proceedings, the charges could be proved by preponderance of probabilities and no strict rule of evidence would be applicable.

¶46

Admittedly, on the same incidence and on identical charges, the respondent was acquitted by the

¶47

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:22755-DB WP No. 8608 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Special Court by judgment dated 02.12.2017 in Spl.C.C.No.197/2011 and the appeal filed by the State in Crl.A.No.282/2018 is also dismissed. When the respondent is acquitted of the charges in the criminal proceedings on the same set of facts and on identical charges and when the Tribunal has recorded on going through the evidence that no witness deposed that they have seen or having the personal knowledge of the harassment of the complainant by the applicant, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.

¶50

No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. No merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.

¶51

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶53

NC CT:bms

The State of Karnataka v. H N Thimmeowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. H N Thimmeowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Megha G @ Meghana G Vs Sri N Suresh

Mahesh Kumar S Vs Smt. Rajamma

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Debdatta Dhar Dey

Sri Pradeep M P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddappa H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shashidhara S., Vs the State of Karnataka