Karnataka High Court
Mr Gajendra K K vs The Registrar General on 29 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB
WA No. 661 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2025 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
MR. GAJENDRA K K,
S/O MR. KRISHNEGOWDA K S,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ATTENDER,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC COURT, TARIKERE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
R/AT: THYAGARAJA NAGARA,
TARIKERE-577 228.
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B M, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
(ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE)
3. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB
WA No. 661 of 2025
HC-KAR
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
(ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITISH K N, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 25/01/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.11935/2022 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning
an order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the learned single
judge in WP.No.11935/2022, whereby the said petition
came to be dismissed.
2. The appellant had preferred the said petition
impeaching an order dated 10.12.2020 in DE.No.1/2018,
whereby the appellant was visited with a penalty of
NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB
HC-KAR
withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect
in exercise of power under Rule 8(iii) of the Karnataka
Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeals) Rules,
1957. The appellant had also impugned the appellate
order dated 15.02.2022, confirming the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority.
3. The appellant was employed as an Attendant in the
Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere. While
in his employment, the appellant had misconducted
himself. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were
commenced and the following charges were framed:
(1) When the D.G.O was performing as group 'D' employee in
the court of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mudigere, he was
negligent, irresponsible, arrogant, disobedient and whenever
any work was assigned to him, he used to shout at his superior
officer; without prior sanction of leave or earned leave, he used
to be absent unauthorizedly and thereby obstructed the smooth
functioning of the court and office and committed mis-conduct
of unbecoming of government servant as per Rule 3(1)[i], [ii]
and [iii] of K.C.S. [Conduct] Rules 1957.
(2) When the D.G.O was working as group 'D' employee,
whenever he was ordered to perform the duty of night
watchman and day duty, he remained absent unauthorizedly
NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB
HC-KAR
from the duty, he was not wearing the prescribed uniform
during working hours and even after issue of several notice, he
did not improve his behaviour or perform his duties properly
and thereby committed the mis-conduct of unbecoming of
government servant.
4. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and he examined
seven witnesses and also examined other documents.
Concededly, the appellant contested the said proceeding
and was given full opportunity to do so. The Enquiry
Officer found that the charges leveled against the
appellant were duly established.
5. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report
and imposed punishment of withdrawal of 3 increments.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred an
appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed
by an order dated 15.02.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
punishment imposed on the appellant is harsh and
disproportionate. The material findings of the Enquiry
NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB
HC-KAR
Officer as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, are not
impeached.
7. The learned counsel has confined the challenge to
the punition imposed. As noted above, he contends that
the punishment is disproportionately excessive. He
referred to a Circular dated 14.09.2001 issued by the
Government of Karnataka. On the strength of the said
circular, submitted that withholding of 3 increments
cumulatively is not in accordance with the punishment as
set out in the said circular. In particular he pointed out
that 'absence of more than 1 month but less than 4
months' was required to be visited with the recommended
punishment of withholding 3 annual increments. He also
referred to the entry at Serial No.6 regarding the
misconduct of 'deficiencies in work procedures'. He
contended that if there is any misconduct relating to
deficiencies in work, it would invite a punishment of
reprimand in the first instance and demotion to the lower
levels in pay scale in the second and subsequent
NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB
HC-KAR
instances. He submitted that since the appellant had not
been charged with misconduct in the past, in terms of the
Circular, he was required to be reprimanded and any other
punishment would be harsh and disproportionate.
8. We are unable to accept the contention that the
punishment imposed on the appellant is harsh or
disproportionate. A plain reading of the charges, which
stand proved, indicate that the petitioner's misconduct is
not confined to mere deficiencies in the work procedure.
The charges are significantly grave. The allegations
against the petitioner are that he was negligent,
irresponsible, arrogant and insolent. He also disobeyed the
orders of the superior and raised his voice. He had taken
paid leave without approval/intimation resulting in
disruption of the work. He had, despite being directed to
perform duties, remained absent. Additionally, it was
found that he would often not wear his uniform and had
neglected to do so despite being so asked.
NC: 2025:KHC:29070-DB
HC-KAR
9. It is well settled that the Courts will not interfere with
the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority
unless it is found that the punishment is unconscionable
and is disproportionately excessive. We are unable to
accept that the punishment imposed, in the present case,
can be interfered with on the anvil of the aforesaid test.
10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
NR/-
