Karnataka High Court
Smt Soumya vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
WP No. 202624 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.202624 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SOUMYA W/O MAHESH,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
NOW WORKING AT IDAPANUR,
POLICE STATION (L & O)
TALUK AND DIST. RAICHUR-584105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
COURT OF HOME DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
EASTERN RANGE,
BELLARY-583101.
3. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY/
COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY DIVISION,
BELLARY-583101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
WP No. 202624 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. ENQUIRY OFFICER AND
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICER,
RAICHUR AT RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE ORDER TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
BEARING NO. DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:01/E«/¹§âA¢-2/2025, N.©.£ÀA.103/2025,
DATED 25.03.2025 VIDE ANNEUXURE-Q PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.
¸ÀASÉå:gÁG«/E«/01/2025 DATED 06.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-R,
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4. II) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
REMARKS/OBSERAVATION AT PARA-16 TO 18 AND ORDER IN
SO FAR AS DIRECTIONS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
CRL.R.P.NO.28/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, AND
COMMUNICATION LETTER BEARING NO.1824/ADMN/2024
DATED 22.10.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
WP No. 202624 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned petition is filed seeking quashment of the order initiating disciplinary proceedings bearing No.01/E«/¹§âA¢-2/2025, N.©.£ÀA.103/2025 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.03.2025 as per Annexure-Q passed by the second respondent and the impugned notice bearing No.gÁG«/E«/01/2025 dated 06.08.2025 vide Annexure-R issued by the fourth respondent. The petitioner is also seeking quashment of the impugned remarks/observations made at paras-16 to 18 and order insofar as directing action against the petitioner as per Annexure-K.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner was appointed as a Police Sub-
Inspector on 16.07.2016 and was serving as the Station House Officer of Sindhanuru Town Police Station from 04.10.2021. A criminal complaint in P.C.No.270/2016, involving multiple accused, had been referred for -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against certain accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 465, 471, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. On 13.10.2021, the FSL report pertaining to the said case was received by the petitioner from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, the report was admittedly not forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Consequently, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 07.01.2022, allowed the discharge application and discharged all the accused on the ground that no sufficient incriminating material was placed before the Court to justify continuation of proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.28/2022.
4. In the backdrop of the fact that the original document and the FSL report were not forwarded to the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR Magistrate till 07.01.2022, the learned Sessions Judge took serious note of the lapse, attributing it to the conduct of the petitioner, and issued a show-cause notice dated 19.09.2024 alleging negligence and dereliction of duty. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 07.10.2024 stating that she had orally directed one G.Prakash, PC No.413, who was assisting her, to submit the FSL report, and that any delay was solely attributable to the subordinate officer and not to her.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, in the revision proceedings, recorded observations at paragraphs 16 to 18 holding that the petitioner had been negligent in the discharge of her duties and directed the second respondent-Inspector General of Police to take appropriate action. Pursuant thereto, a communication dated 22.10.2024 was issued to the second respondent. A preliminary enquiry was thereafter conducted by the Police Inspector, who, in his report dated 01.12.2024, concluded that the petitioner was negligent and derelict in duty. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR Based on this report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated as per Annexure-Q and a disciplinary notice was issued as per Annexure-R.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned action principally on two grounds:
(i) that the show-cause notice issued by the learned Sessions Judge during revisional proceedings, and the consequential communication of the second respondent/IGP, are without jurisdiction and therefore illegal, thereby vitiating the subsequent disciplinary action; and
(ii) that the petitioner has been denied a meaningful and effective opportunity to defend herself, and that the material relied upon does not constitute evidence sufficient in law to sustain a finding of negligence.
7. In support of these submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR Shekhar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal Nos.388-389/2024, decided on 22.11.2024) and the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Lambodar Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., [(2016) 03 CHH CK 0026]. A further contention is raised that the explanation dated 07.10.2024, purported to have been submitted in response to the Sessions Judge's show-cause notice, was not authored by the petitioner but was forged by her subordinate. It is therefore contended that there is a patent violation of procedural fairness, inasmuch as, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to offer a genuine explanation which could have averted the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
8. Placing reliance on the above authorities, it is argued that there was absolutely no material before the learned Sessions Judge to justify the issuance of a show- cause notice to the petitioner or the consequential direction to the second respondent to initiate action. If the impugned proceedings are permitted to stand, the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner would suffer grave prejudice affecting her service career in the Police Department.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, adverting to the observations of the learned Sessions Judge in paragraphs 16 to 18, submits that the Sessions Court has clearly found the petitioner guilty of dereliction of duty. Despite having received the FSL report, the petitioner failed to forward it to the Magistrate without any justification. Acting on the judicial direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge, the second respondent rightly initiated proceedings. It is therefore argued that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited and that no interference with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings is warranted.
10. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can quash Annexure-Q, Annexure-R and -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR the impugned observations recorded in Criminal Revision Petition No.28/2022?
ii. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated for want of jurisdiction or on account of breach of the principles of natural justice so as to warrant interference at this stage?
Findings on both the points:
11. Before this Court delves into the matter, it would be apposite for this Court to extract the observations made by the Revisional Court/learned Sessions Judge at paragraphs-16 to 18 in Criminal Revision Petition No.28/2022, as well as the relevant operative portion of the order. The same is extracted and reads as under:
"16. The PSI, received the notice on 26-09-2024 and given her explanation dated 07-10-2024. In the explanation the PSI, has stated that, she had instructed PC No.413/G. Prakash who was the assistant to submit the FSL report and original records to the court orally and he did not produce. She was under work pressure
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR and not verified whether PC No.413 submitted records to court. On these explanation, the PSI prayed to drop the proposed action.
17. There was legal obligation on the PSI/Smt. Soumya to produce the FSL report and original records before court immediately as the criminal case was registered based on charge sheet filed by her predecessor in office. The responsibility should not and ought not shifted to police constable for production of records. The work pressure is not the ground to keep the original records in the police station till discharge of accused. There was serious allegation against accused in the charge sheet. If the State not prepared the present Revision Petition, the accused/respondents could have scot free. The State has incurred extra expense to file revision petition. Having regard to these facts, I am of the opinion that explanation given by Smt. Soumy, PSI is not acceptable. Accordingly such explanations are not accepted.
18. The lapse on the part of Smt. Soumya, PSI shall have to be reported to Inspector General of Police Ballary for taking action against her in accordance with law. Court feels that, recommendation has to be made to take action against Smt. Soumya, PSI.
Extract of the relevant Operative portion:
Send copy of this order to Inspector General of Police Eastern Range, Ballary with recommendation
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR along with copy of show cause notice and reply given by Smt. Soumya, PSI to take action against Smt. Soumya, PSI in accordance with law with a request to submit report about the action taken."
12. The above extracted observations recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. As noted in the said observations, it is not in dispute that the FSL report dated 28.07.2021, along with the original documents, was received in the petitioner's office on 13.10.2021. Admittedly, these documents were not forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate until the discharge application came to be adjudicated. Whether non-production of the FSL report was decisive in the order of discharge or whether its timely submission would have altered the outcome are matters that cannot be examined in the present proceedings under Article 226. However, the fact remains that the report was withheld from 13.10.2021 and was not produced before the competent Court at any material point of time, including as late as 24.04.2024 or
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR 08.10.2024. In these circumstances, it was well within the competence of the learned Sessions Judge, exercising revisional jurisdiction, to notice and comment upon such lapse. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge expressing strong disapproval of the petitioner's conduct do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or legal impropriety warranting interference. Accordingly, the prayer for expunging the remarks made in Criminal Revision Petition No.28/2022 is wholly misconceived and does not merit acceptance.
13. The fresh explanation now sought to be furnished by the petitioner is a matter that must appropriately be examined by the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings. It is trite law that the writ jurisdiction of this Court in matters relating to issuance of show-cause notices, charge sheets and initiation of departmental enquiries is extremely limited. Ordinarily, no writ petition lies to quash a show-cause notice or charge sheet unless it is demonstrated that the authority issuing
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR it had no jurisdiction or the action is ex facie illegal. This Court does not sit as an appellate forum to re-appreciate evidence or to adjudicate factual disputes. The Court's supervisory role under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process, and interference is justified only where the action suffers from a jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, breach of natural justice, or where the finding is based on no evidence, or is perverse, arbitrary, or shocking to the judicial conscience.
14. The petitioner has failed to establish that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge at paragraphs-16 to 18 of the revisional order, directing the second respondent/IGP to take appropriate action, and consequent communication to the IGP dated 22.10.2024, constitute administrative steps taken in furtherance of judicial observations. The disciplinary action initiated by the second respondent is thus not only within jurisdiction but is a natural
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR administrative consequence of the findings recorded by the revisional Court.
15. The contention that although a show-cause notice was issued by the learned Sessions Judge, the reply dated 07.10.2024 was not authored by the petitioner but by her subordinate officer, is a matter involving disputed facts. Such a disputed question cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. This plea remains open for the petitioner to establish in the departmental proceedings by adducing cogent evidence demonstrating that the explanation submitted before the learned Sessions Judge was neither authored nor authorised by her. As matters stand, the record reflects that the learned Sessions Judge provided an opportunity to the petitioner and a reply was indeed furnished, wherein the delay was attributed to workload and inadvertence. The petitioner now seeks to retract from that position, which is a serious allegation and must be substantiated before the Enquiry Officer, not in these proceedings.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. Mere recording of adverse remarks by the learned Sessions Judge, followed by initiation of departmental proceedings by the competent authority, does not by itself constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner will have a full and effective opportunity to defend herself before the Enquiry Officer and before the disciplinary authority, once the charge sheet is served and proceedings commence. At this preliminary stage, no prejudice is shown to have been caused merely by the initiation of the process.
17. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that neither the observations recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, nor the departmental enquiry initiated by respondent No.2, nor the consequent notice issued by respondent No.4, warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has not demonstrated any lack of jurisdiction, procedural violation, or legal infirmity in the challenged actions. The
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000 WP No. 202624 of 2025 HC-KAR steps taken by the second respondent are clearly responsive to and triggered by the judicial observations of the revisional Court. The petitioner has thus failed to make out any case for interference at this stage.
18. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner, liberty is reserved to her to contest the departmental proceedings and raise all permissible defences, including those articulated in the present writ petition. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 CT:SI