Karnataka High Court
The Additional Registrar vs Mr Lalsab M Mundenavar on 20 February, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB
WP No. 46925 of 2019
C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.46925/2019 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.6051/2019 (S-KSAT)
IN WP NO. 46925/2019
BETWEEN:
THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
(ENQUIRES-3)
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. MR. LALSAB M MUNDENAVAR
NANJUNDACHARI
S/O MOHAMAD ALI
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA WORKING AS GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
KAPPALGUDDI, RAIBAG TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
RESIDING AT G P KAGADAL
SAUNDATTI TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 213.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
& PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB
WP No. 46925 of 2019
C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & EX-OFFICIO
UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
& PANCHAYAT RAJ,
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
D C OFFICE COMPOUND
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEEP B.K., ADV. FOR
SRI G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3
NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION NO.6411/2017 DATED 03.08.2018 (ANNEXURE-C).
IN WP NO. 6051/2019
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
& PANCHAYAT RAJ,
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & EX-OFFICIO
UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
& PANCHAYAT RAJ,
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB
WP No. 46925 of 2019
C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. LAL SAB M MUNDENAVAR
SON OF MOHAMAD ALI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS
GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
KAPPALAGUDDI, RAIBAG TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
RESIDING AT G.P.KAGADAL
SAUNDATTI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 213.
2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
(ENQUIRIES-3)
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
D.C.OFFICE COMPOUND
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEEP B.K., ADV. FOR
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR G. M., ADV. FOR R1
SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2
R3 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLS FOR RECORDS;
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2018 IN APPLICATION
NO.6411/2017 [ANNEXURE-A] PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS APPLICATION NO.6411/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB
WP No. 46925 of 2019
C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) In both the writ petitions, petitioners i.e., the Lokayukta as well as the State Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 03.08.2018 in Application No.6411/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), allowing respondent No.1's application questioning the order of penalty of compulsory retirement dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure-A7).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant one Sri.Ningappa Siddappa Nidagundi on 25.08.2006, articles of charge dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure-A1) was issued to respondent No.1. The Enquiry Officer of the petitioner Lokayukta on conducting enquiry submitted his report dated 26.10.2015 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR holding that the Disciplinary Authority has proved the charge against respondent No.1. The petitioner was issued with second show cause notice dated 16.11.2015 enclosing the enquiry report and the respondent No.1 is said to have submitted his reply on 11.01.2016. The Disciplinary Authority by impugned order dated 15.12.2016 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement in exercise of powers under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'CCA Rules'). Questioning the said order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application and the Tribunal under the impugned order dated 03.08.2018, allowed the application and quashed the order of penalty of compulsory retirement dated 15.12.2016. Questioning the said order, the State Authorities as well as the Karnataka Lokayukta are before this Court in these writ petitions.
3. It is also relevant to notice that on the same allegation, criminal prosecution was lodged against -6- NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR respondent No.1 in Special Case No.23/2007 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge and Special Judge, Belgaum, at Belgaum and by judgment dated 09.08.2010, the respondent No.1 herein was convicted of the charges for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, '1988 Act'). The respondent aggrieved by such conviction filed criminal appeal No.2745/2010 before this Court and this Court by judgment dated 26.09.2013 acquitted the respondent of the charges leveled against him.
4. The Tribunal while allowing the respondent's application and quashing the order of penalty of compulsory retirement dated 15.12.2016, observed that PW1 - complainant turned hostile and PW2 - panch witness-has only stated in his evidence with regard to entrustment of trap money. Further, it observed that the Investigating Officer has not entered the witness box. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR
5. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for State, learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty for Lokayukta and learned counsel Sri.Sudeep.B.K., for Sri.G.M.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra as well as learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty would submit that the Tribunal under impugned order failed to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners and erroneously allowed the application and quashed the penalty order of compulsory retirement. Learned counsels for the petitioners would submit that no strict rules of evidence is applicable to the departmental proceedings and charges could be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. There was sufficient material to prove the charge against the respondent No.1. Moreover, learned counsels would submit that the respondent No.1 was convicted on the same charge, however, he is acquitted in the appeal. When there is -8- NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR some evidence, the same would be sufficient to prove the charge and accordingly the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges leveled against respondent No.1 is proved. Thus, they would pray for allowing the writ petitions.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Sudeep.B.K., appearing on behalf of Sri.G.M.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further submit that it is a case of no evidence. As such, the Tribunal is justified in quashing the penalty order of compulsory retirement. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that PW1 has turned hostile and PW2 has only deposed with regard to entrustment of trap money and there is no evidence to prove the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe. Further, learned counsel would submit that the other panch witnesses and the Investigating Officer have not been examined before the Disciplinary Authority. In the above circumstances, learned counsel would submit -9- NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the application and set aside the penalty order of compulsory retirement. Hence, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons:
Normally, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an Appellate Authority and would not go into the evidence. However, this Court would go into evidence only to find out as to whether it is a case of no evidence or whether there is some evidence to prove the charge. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is true that normally in a departmental proceedings, strict rules of evidence would not be applicable and charges could be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS VS. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA1 has laid down the principles for interfering with the proceedings in a departmental proceeding by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary enquiry and in the said process at paragraphs 22, 23, 25 to 28, it has held as follows:
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan [State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1385] and later in State of 1 (2021) 2 SCC 612
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR T.N. v. A. Rajapandian [State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 292] and further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under: (B.C. Chaturvedi case [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , SCC pp. 759-60, para 13) "13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718: AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 :
(2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103].
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
10. In terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court could interfere with the order of penalty, if it is a case of no evidence. In the instant case, there is no evidence to prove the charge i.e., demand and acceptance of bribe/illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/-. The Disciplinary Authority has examined two witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the complainant and PW2 is one of the shadow witness. PW1 has turned hostile
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR and he has not supported the case of the Disciplinary Authority, whereas PW2 is one of the panch witness and he has deposed only with regard to entrustment of trap money. However, the other panch witness is not examined, as he had died by the time evidence was let in. Moreover, for the reasons best known to the Disciplinary Authority, the Investigating Officer is not examined before the Enquiry Officer. When there is no cogent evidence at all to prove the charge, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of penalty of compulsory retirement. The Enquiry Officer when there being no material, only on imagination, proceeded to hold the charge as proved. The Disciplinary Authority also failed to examine as to whether there is evidence to prove the charge against respondent No.1 and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement based on the recommendation of the Lokayukta. There is total non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10578-DB WP No. 46925 of 2019 C/W WP No. 6051 of 2019 HC-KAR
11. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petitions and accordingly writ petitions stand rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64