Karnataka High Court
Kubersab M Nadaf S/Omahammad Sab vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB
WP No. 101931 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.101931 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
KUBERSAB M.NADAF
S/O. MAHAMMAD SAB,
AGE. 36 YEARS,
OCC. CONSTABLE, APC-276,
R/O. 2ND CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR,
MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580001,
DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
CHANDRASHEKAR DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NORTH RANGE, BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB
WP No. 101931 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.11.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION
NO.7542/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASE TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEARING NO.¹§âA¢-6/²PÉë/2015, DzÉñÀ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ
¸ÀASÉå:151/2015, DATED 15.09.2015 (ANNEXURE-A2) PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ORDER NO.C¦Ã®Ä/31/GªÀ/2015, DATED 20.12.2012
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A3) AND NO.ME 59
¥ÉƹC 2016 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, DATED 05.10.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A4); II) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE INCREMENTS
WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED WHICH ARE POSTPONED BY
VIRTUE OF PUNISHMENT ORDER AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, 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
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
The petitioner, an Armed Police Constable is
aggrieved of the imposition of penalty of postponement of
three annual increments, and treating the period of
suspension of 42 days as suspension period only and is
further aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Belagavi,
dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB
HC-KAR
2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner along
with two other Armed Reserved Constables were deputed
on escort duty for taking two prisoners to the District
Hospital, Dharwad on 19.01.2015 at 8.30 a.m., for
medical treatment and with a duty to bring back the
prisoners. One of the prisoners was taken in for x-ray of
his knee and on completion, the doctor said that the report
will have to be awaited. However, since other prisoner
was required to be taken to the dental department, the
other two Constables took the said prisoner to the dental
department, leaving the petitioner with the other prisoner
who had already completed his medical examination and
was awaiting the report. After sometime, the prisoner
requested the petitioner to permit him to go to the toilet.
Accordingly, the petitioner permitted the prisoner to go to
the toilet, however, taking advantage of the fact that there
were no handcuffs on the prisoner, the prisoner escaped.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that charges
were leveled against all the three Constables, however,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB
HC-KAR
only petitioner is found guilty and punishment is imposed
on the petitioner alone, while discharging the other two
Constables. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner
seeks to place reliance on the following judgments:
1) Director General of Police and others vs. G.
Dasayan1
2) Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs.
Jitendra Pd. Singh and another2 and
3) Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and
others3
4. Learned counsel would contend that the ratio of
the judgments is to the effect that similarly situated
employees should be dealt with similarly.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner,
learned Government Advocate for the respondent and on
perusing the petition papers, we find that the decision in
Akhilesh Kumar Singh (supra) in fact goes against the
petitioner. The Apex Court has held that quantum of
(1998) 2 SCC 407
(2001) 10 SCC 530
(2008) 2 SCC 74
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB
HC-KAR
punishment is imposed on a delinquent employee by the
appointing authority, however, it depends upon several
factors. Conduct of the delinquent officers as also the
nature of the charges play a vital role in this behalf. It
was found therein that Charge 1 against the appellant was
a very serious one and the other employee with whom the
appellant was comparing himself, had not been charged
therewith, it cannot be said that the appellant and the
other employees were similarly situated. Moreover, it was
also found Charge 2 had been partly proved against the
other employee whereas the appellant admitted his guilt in
relation thereto.
6. Having regard to the admitted facts that at the
relevant point of time, admittedly, the petitioner was the
only person who was in control of the prisoner and the
other two Constables had accompanied the other prisoner
to the dental department and therefore, although the
charges leveled against all the three Constables were
similar, the decision arrived at by the enquiry officer and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB
HC-KAR
the respondent-department having regard to the admitted
facts, cannot be faulted. It is clear that the petitioner
alone was in control of the prisoner who ultimately
escaped at the hands of the petitioner and not the other
Constables.
7. Coming to the question of whether the
punishment imposed on petitioner is commensurate with
the charges leveled against the petitioner, it is necessary
to notice the observation of the Tribunal that though a
major penalty had been suggested in the show cause
notice, but taking into consideration that the petitioner has
served for ten years, a minor penalty has been imposed.
The penalty imposed on the petitioner is postponement of
three annual increments and treating the period of
suspension (42 days) as suspension period only. This
punishment, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot
be held to be disproportionate to the charges alleged
against the petitioner. In fact, the respondents have
taken a lenient view and have imposed a minor penalty,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7768-DB
HC-KAR
although it was suggested that major penalty be imposed
on the petitioner.
8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
NAA
CT: UMD
