Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shri Satish Naik S/O Keshav on 22 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.104751 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103187 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.104751 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PLANNING, PROGRAMMING CO-ORDINATION AND
STATISTICS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
VINAYAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
BV
2. THE DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.07.24 13:11:44
+0530
DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMIC & STATISTICS,
7TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DISTRICT STATISTICAL OFFICER
NO.235, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA
(MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA)
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. SATISH NAIK S/O KESHAV
AGE. 43 YEARS, WORKING AS TALUKA
PLANNING OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
R/AT C/O LAXMAN KATTIMANI,
TIPPU NAGAR, BADAMI-587201.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
BADAMI, BAGALKOT-587201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10272
OF 2021 (ANNEXURE.C TO THE WRIT PETITION) & ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.103187 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, CO-ORDINATE
AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMIC AND STATISTICS,
7TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE DISTRICT STATISTICAL OFFICER,
NO.235, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA,
(MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA),
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BADAMI,
DISTRICT. BAGALKOT-587201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI SATISH NAIK S/O KESHAV
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. NOW NILL,
WORKED AS TALUKA PLANNING OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BADAMI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT, R/AT. NEAR DURGA VIHAR,
STATION ROAD, L T BAGALKOT-587686.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. UPADHYE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
12.10.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, IN APPLICATION NO.10235/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
Both these writ petitions are filed by the State of
Karnataka, Department of Planning, Programming Co-
ordination and Statistics Department along with the
Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics and the
District Statistical Officer and the respondent is Sri.Satish
Naik in both the matters. Therefore, they are clubbed
together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. At the threshold, learned Government Advocate
submits that W.P.No.104751/2022 does not survive for
consideration since the writ petition was filed assailing an
order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Belagavi in Application No.10272/2021 where the
respondent, pending disciplinary proceedings was
demoted. The Tribunal allowed the application while
setting aside the said order at Annexure-A11 dated
20.02.2021. However, subsequently, the departmental
enquiry was held and punishment was imposed on the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
respondent. Therefore, W.P.No.104751/2022 is required to
be disposed of as having become infructuous.
3. It is not in dispute that the respondent was
initially appointed as Enumerator on 28.07.2003 and
subsequently, he was promoted as Statistical Inspector in
the year 2006 and further promoted as Assistant
Statistical Officer in the year 2010. However, when the
respondent was further promoted as Assistant Director of
Statistics by order dated 22.07.2014, certain complaints
were received against the respondent and few other
persons and the department initiated disciplinary
proceedings. After receiving information that the
respondent had produced a fake degree certificate, which
was allegedly not issued by the Eastern Institute of
Integrated Learning in Management, which was affiliated
to the University of Sikkim, in the departmental enquiry,
the information was placed before the Inquiry Officer in
the form of Ex.14 dated 24.11.2020 said to have been
issued by the Registrar (IC), EIILMU, Sikkim/Deputy
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
Director, Higher Education, Education Department,
Government of Sikkim stating that the marks card copy of
Sri.Satish K. Naik bearing No.EIILMU/09/S27184 and two
other persons obtained from EIILM University of Sikkim
are "not valid/genuine". The Inquiry Officer submitted a
report holding that the charge against the respondent was
proved and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority
proceeded to issue a second show-cause notice to the
respondent and passed an order on 31.01.2023 imposing
punishment of dismissal from the service.
4. The respondent preferred Application
No.10235/2023 before the Tribunal at Belagavi and on
12.10.2023, the Tribunal passed the impugned order
setting aside the order of punishment dated 31.01.2023
while remitting the matter back to the Director,
Directorate of Economics and Statistics to pass a modified
order within four months from the date of receipt of copy
of the order, reverting back the applicant to the post of
Assistant Statistical Officer, with effect from 22.07.2014
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
by cancelling his promotion to the post of Assistant
Director of Statistics (Group-B). It is also directed that, all
benefits enjoyed by the applicant related to pay and
allowances also may be reviewed as per law.
5. Learned Government Advocate vehemently
contended that even in the reply given to the second
show-cause notice, the respondent did not deny the fact
that the certificate/marks card that he produced were
issued by the University of Sikkim. The Registrar of the
University has issued a communication which was marked
as Ex.14 before the Inquiry Officer which clearly stated
that, on verification, the marks card submitted by three
officers were "not valid/genuine". It is also a fact that the
respondent has not challenged the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal and he has accepted the finding of the
Tribunal that insofar as charge of production of fake
certificate and marks card were proved against the
respondent herein. However, the learned Government
Advocate submits that it is a settled position of law that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
courts normally do not modify the punishment and if it is
found that the punishment is exorbitant and not
commensurate with the charges imposed against the
delinquent officer, then the courts should remit the matter
back to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the
quantum of punishment. In this regard, learned
Government Advocate places reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MEGHALAYA
AND OTHERS VS MECKEN SINGH N.MARAK reported in
(2008) 7 SCC 580, where it was held that, while
considering the question of proportionality of sentence
imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental
enquiry, the court should also take into consideration, the
mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be
performed by him and similar relevant circumstances
which go into the decision-making process. If the charged
employee holds the position of trust where honesty and
integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would
not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with with iron
hands. In the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS
RAJENDRA D.HARMALKAR reported (2022) 17 SCC 361, in
paragraph 21, it was held as follows:
"In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v. Rajendra
Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372, in paragraph 19, it was observed
and held as under:
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and
summarised as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the
quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is
essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of
disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum
of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this
function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent
authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases
where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of
the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as
shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed
against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of
action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority
or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate
order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what
should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4
above, would be in those cases where the co delinquent is
awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even
when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-
delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would
be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the
employee concerned and the codelinquent are equally placed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
However, there has to be a complete parity between the
two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent
conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the two
cases. If the codelinquent accepts the charges, indicating
remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him
would be justifiable."
6. However, the Tribunal accepted the contention
of the respondent that, having regard to there being no
complaint regarding the documents given by the
respondent during his initial appointment as Enumerator
on the basis of the educational qualifications of SSLC, the
promotion given to the respondent as Assistant Statistical
Officer in the year 2010 was also on the basis of the same
educational qualification. The invalid certificate of B.A.
(Economics) and marks card was submitted by the
respondent for securing promotion to the post of Assistant
Director of Statistics (Group-B). Therefore, the Tribunal
was of the opinion that since it is not disputed that
appointment and promotion of the respondent to the post
of Assistant Statistical Officer was based on genuine
documents, he cannot be removed from the service.
Learned Government Advocate submits that having regard
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
to the position of law, as stated in the above said
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the decision as to
whether the respondent should only be demoted and not
removed from the service should have been left to the
Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal could not have
issued such positive direction.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
would submit that in the reply given by the respondent
along with the writ petition at Annexure-A12, the
respondent has clearly stated that during the years
2009-11, he got enrolled for the degree course at Inamdar
Regional Educational and Charitable Trust (R), Gulbarga
and after having completed the course, the degree
certificate as well as marks card were furnished by the
said institution. However, the petitioner authority have
only sought for verification of the certificate and the marks
card at the hands of the Government of Sikkim. It is also
not clear as to whether such information would be
available with the government or whether the information
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
was secured from the University of Sikkim. At any rate,
the allegation that the respondent has produced fake
certificate/marks card cannot be accepted and it cannot be
declared that respondent has produced fraudulent
documents, since, it was always contended by the
respondent that the institution gave him the certificate and
the marks card. However, if the institution has played
fraud by enrolling the respondent although it was not
affiliated or not permitted to offer said subjects, since the
said subjects were not permitted by the University, then it
cannot be alleged that the respondent has produced a fake
certificate. It is pointed out to Ex.14, which is the
communication dated 24.11.2020 made by the Deputy
Director of Higher Education, Government of Sikkim,
where it only says that the marks card copy produced by
the respondent is "not valid/genuine". It is not stated in
the said communication that the marks card were got
verified at the hands of the University of Sikkim. It is not
stated clearly as to whether the University had not issued
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
marks card at all. Learned counsel would therefore submit
that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of
the Disciplinary Authority.
8. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the
petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. During the course of the arguments, our
attention is drawn at two judgments. One of the judgment
is of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at
Srinagar, in the case of MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ DAR VS UNION
TERRITORY OF J&K & OTHERS IN W.P.(C)NO.3308/2023
CM NO.7940/2023 dated 18.04.2025, where it was held
that the petitioner had only submitted the certificate
issued by un-recognized institution. Had the petitioner
submitted any fake or forged certificate, this court would
not have shown any indulgence but in view of the fact that
the petitioner had submitted certificate by un-recognized
institution and at the most while conducting scrutiny of the
documents submitted by the candidates, the respondent
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
could have excluded the said certificate while determining
the merit of the petitioner. In another judgment of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the case of
DHARMDAS BHALEKAR VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND OTHERS IN W.P.NO.39/2024 dated 25.10.2024, it is
held that, acceptance of an unacceptable certificate is one
aspect and a certificate obtained which is forged is another
aspect. It is settled in law that fraud vitiates everything
but there is no allegation against the petitioner that the
certificate that he has relied upon while taking
appointment is a forged certificate. There is no averment
in the complaint that the petitioner was not having 15%
temporary disability as contained in the said certificate. If
the allegation had been that the petitioner was not having
even 15% temporary disability then it would have been a
case where the certificate was obtained by fraud. If the
complaint had been that the certificate was actually never
issued then it would have been a case of forgery. None of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
these allegations are contained in the complaint against
the petitioners.
10. Having regard to the undisputed facts as
obtained, in the present case, we find that the respondent
has clearly stated in the reply to the charge memo that he
had enrolled for B.A. degree course at Inamdar Regional
Educational and Charitable Trust (R), Gulbarga. If it is the
case that institution admits that it has issued the
certificate and the marks card to the respondent, then the
allegation of fraud or production of fake certificate will not
stick on the respondent. Under those circumstances, it
would be appropriate that the Disciplinary Authority has to
re-look into the matter. If necessary, additional enquiry
can be held while enabling the Disciplinary Authority to call
for such information from the Inamdar Regional
Educational and Charitable Trust (R), Gulbarga where the
respondent had enrolled. The information is also required
to be called for from the University and not from the
Government of Sikkim. If after such enquiry, it is found
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
that the certificate and the marks card were issued by the
institution where the respondent has studied, then the
allegation of fraud or production of fake certificate cannot
held against the respondent. On the other hand, if the
institution denied having issued such certificate and marks
card to the respondent, then the allegation of fraud or
production of fake certificate can be held against the
respondent.
11. For the reasons stated above, we are of the
considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal
requires modification as hereunder.
i) W.P.No.103187/2024 is partly allowed.
ii) While remitting the matter back to petitioner
No.2-the Director, Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, it is hereby directed that the
Disciplinary Authority may hold additional
enquiry calling for information from the
institution where the respondent studied and
the University of Sikkim. Any information
obtained from the institution and the University
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
shall firstly be brought to the notice of the
respondent and thereafter, additional enquiry
including recording of evidence and cross-
examination shall be permitted.
iii) The Inquiry Officer shall thereafter file
additional report. All further procedure as
contemplated in law shall be followed and
petitioner No.2 is permitted to take a decision
based on the additional report that would be
submitted by the Inquiry Officer.
iv) The entire process of holding additional enquiry
and the decision to be taken by petitioner
No.2/Disciplinary Authority shall be concluded
as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
v) Needless to observe that, if it is found that the
respondent has not furnished any forged or
fake certificate, then appropriate orders shall be
passed by the Disciplinary Authority including a
decision regarding pay and allowances of the
respondent during the period where he was
kept out of service.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
HC-KAR
vi) In view of the submission made by the learned
Government Advocate, W.P.No.104751/2022
stands disposed of as having become
infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, all pending
I.A's, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same
are dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MBS, CT:VP
