Sri Togya Naik vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 4742 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Togya Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2025

Author: Krishna S Dixit

Bench: Krishna S Dixit

                                              -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB
                                                      WP No. 16855 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                           PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
                                             AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 16855 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. TOGYA NAIK
                   S/O LATE OBA NAIK
                   AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                   OCC:ASSISTANT ENGINEER
                   PWD SUB-DIVISION
                   HIRIYUR, NEAR DC OFFICE
                   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501

                   AND ALSO PRESENTLY
                   R/AT HOUSE NO. 171-A
                   9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE
                   K.H.B. COLONY
                   NEAR IUBP LAYOUT
                   CHITRADURGA-577 501
Digitally signed
by SHAKAMBARI                                                  ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           (BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
                   AND:

                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         REPRESENTED BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY
                         DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
                         AND PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING
                         M.S.BUILDING
                         BENGALURU 560 001
                                   -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB
                                              WP No. 16855 of 2023




2.    THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES -14
      KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
      M.S BUILDING
      BENGALURU-560 001

3.    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-585 202
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORD IN APPLICATION No. 3611/2022 ON
THE FILE OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY    AND    ISSUE      A   WRIT     OF   CERTIORARI   OR     ANY
APPROPRIATE ORDER BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 27.05.2023 IN APPLICATION No. 3611/2022 PASSED BY
THE    KARNATAKA      STATE      ADMINISTRATIVE       TRIBUNAL,    AT
BENGALURU       AS    PER    ANNEXURE-B,       AND    CONSEQUENTLY
QUASHING      THE     IMPUGNED      ORDER      DATED    10.03.2022,
BEARING Sl.No.GRA.AA.PA/96/ENQ/2021, PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT,      AS    PER      ANNEXURE-A10     AND    ALLOW     THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

       THIS   PETITION,         COMING    ON    FOR    PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB
                                         WP No. 16855 of 2023




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
           and
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR


                         ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner

under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,

challenging the order dated 27.5.2023 passed by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter

referred to `the Tribunal') in Application NO.3611/2022,

whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's

application seeking to quash the penalty order dated

10.3.2022. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer in the

Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Hiriyuru,

Chitradurga District, was imposed a penalty of withholding

one annual increment for alleged misconduct under Rule

3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct)

Rules, 1966 (in short `the Rules').

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

Factual Matrix:

2. The factual backdrop of the case, as culled

out from the pleadings and documents on record, is as

follows:

• The petitioner was serving as a Junior Engineer in the Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Hiriyuru, Chitradurga District, during the years between 2006 and 2007.

• A complaint was lodged by one Smt.Gangamma before the Karnataka Lokayukta on 1.9.2007, alleging that petitioner along with two other officials had misappropriated Govt.funds by drawing bills without executing the work of constructing check bunds in Sy.No.53, Vaddagere Village, H.D.Kote Grama Panchayath. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner and other Government Employees had shown excess measurement in the work done,

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

thereby caused monetary loss of Rs.33,102/- to the Government.

• Based on the complaint, a charge sheet was issued on 27.6.2016, alleging, that petitioner and other two officials were responsible for the excess payment of Rs.33,102/- due to an excess measurement of 592.71 cms. in the construction of a check dam. Charges were framed under Rule 3(1)(i) to(iii) of Rules, for misconduct, dereliction of duty and failure to maintain integrity.

• the petitioner filed a detailed statement of objections denying the charges and specifically contended, that the work was executed as per the guidelines under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) (hereinafter referred as `Scheme') and that no excess payment or measurement was made.

• An enquiry was conducted, during which, the complainant (PW.1)

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

admitted that she did not know the contents of the complaint and had signed it on her husband's instructions. PW.2, Superintendent Engineer has stated that, he could not verify the original measurement due to the lapse of time and vegetation growth at the site.

• Despite petitioner's objections and lack of direct evidence, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 2.9.2021 holding that the charges are proved. The Upalokayukta recommended withholding one annual increment of the petitioner which was subsequently imposed by the disciplinary authority vide orders dated 10.3.2022.

• The petitioner challenged the aforesaid penalty order before the Tribunal which dismissed the application on 27.5.2023 by upholding the findings of the enquiry officer and the penalty imposed.

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

This is how now the petitioner is before this Court

seeking the aforesaid reliefs by filing this petition under

Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

Submissions of the Counsel for the Petitioner:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in

addition to the facts so narrated in the petition as well as

findings of the Tribunal took this Court to the various

evidence conducted before the Enquiry Officer. His

submissions are set out as under:

• The complainant (PW.1) has denied the

contents of the complaint and admitted that

she had signed the complaint at the

instructions of her husband but, the enquiry

officer has failed to examine the husband

rendering the findings unsustainable.

• PW.2, a Superintendent Engineer has stated

in his evidence that he could not identify the

original measurements due to lapse of time

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

and vegetation growth. Despite this

evidence, the Enquiry Officer has wrongly

held that the charges are proved though

there is no sufficient evidence.

• It is further submitted that the work was

executed as per the guidelines and the

payments were made through RTGS through

labourer's Account. He submits that there is

no evidence of excess payment or dereliction

of duty.

• The impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal

and violated the principles of natural justice.

It is prayed to allow the petition.

Submissions of the Counsel for the Respondents:

4. The submissions of the counsel for the

respondents are as under:

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

• The enquiry officer's report is purely based on

evidence including the complainant's signature

and panchanaa Ex.P4. The petitioner has failed

to disprove the charges and thereby, the

penalty so imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority is proportionate to the misconduct.

• The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the

application of the petitioner after considering

the evidence placed on record.

• Principles of natural justice were duly followed

and this petitioner was given ample, sufficient

opportunity to present his case and cross-

examine the witnesses.

• The scope of judicial review in disciplinary

matters is limited and this Court cannot

reappreciate the evidence and cannot act as

an Appellate Authority. Hence, it is prayed to

dismiss the petition.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

Findings and Analysis:

5. After hearing the arguments of both the

side and on perusal of the records, we are of the

considered view that the petition is liable to be dismissed

for the following reasons:

As could be seen from the records placed on record

by both the side, the petitioner was afforded a fair and

reasonable opportunity to present his defence, to file his

objections and cross-examine the witnesses before the

Enquiry Officer. The complainant (PW.1) was treated as a

hostile witness and her cross-examination was conducted

in accordance with law. Even the petitioner was given

opportunity to present his evidence and to submit his

arguments before the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary

Authority and the Tribunal. Thus, the principles of natural

justice which is now questioned by the petitioner were

scrupulously followed by the authorities concerned and

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

thus, there is no violation of the petitioner's right in this

regard.

6. The Enquiry Officer has relied upon the

complainant's signature and the panchanama (Ex.P4) to

conclude that the charges so levelled against the

petitioner and other DGOs are proved. Though the

complainant denied the contents of the complainant, it is

observed that, her admission of her signature and the

pancahnama prepared in the presence of DGO, it provided

a credible basis for the findings by the Enquiry Officer.

Therefore, from the records, it can be stated that, the

report of the enquiry officer is not based on any mere

conjunctures or surmises but, it is based on documentary

evidence which carries significant weight in the

disciplinary proceedings.

7. PW.2, a Superintendent Engineer has

stated that he could not identify the original

measurements due the lapse of time and vegetation

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

growth. However, as per the materials placed on record,

as rightly observed by the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by

the Disciplinary Authority, this does not invalidate the

findings of the enquiry officer. The panchanama and other

documents so placed on record constitute sufficient

evidence to support the charges. The inability to verify

the measurements after a long lapse of time does not

absolve the petitioner of the alleged misconduct especially

when other corroborative evidence is very much available

on record.

8. The penalty of withholding one annual

increment is a minor punishment and is proportionate to

the misconduct alleged. It does not amount to a severe or

disproportionate penalty. While imposing such penalty,

the disciplinary authority exercised its discretion

judiciously and we find no reason to interfere with the

quantum of punishment as because, the scope of judicial

review in disciplinary matters is inherently limited. While

exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

Constitution of India, the Courts do not sit as an Appellate

Authorities over the findings of disciplinary proceedings.

The role of this Court under Article 226 and 227 is not to

re-appreciate the evidence or to substitute its own view

for that of the enquiry officer or disciplinary authority.

Instead of that, the court's function is confined ensuring

that the principles of natural justice have been followed or

not and whether the findings are based on no evidence

and further the Court has to look into the decision that

whether it is perverse or arbitrary. As per the plethora of

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and judgments of

this Court, the standard of proof required is, not as

stringent as in criminal cases wherein, the charges in

criminal cases must be proved "beyond all reasonable

doubt". In case of disciplinary proceedings, the principle

that is applicable is "preponderance of probabilities". This

principle implies that the Enquiry Officer or the

Disciplinary Authority must determine whether the

charges are more likely to be true than not, which must

be based on evidence presented before them. It is a lower

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

threshold of proof which allows for a decision to be made

even if there is some degree of uncertainty, provided

that, the evidence tilts the balance in favour of one

conclusion over the other.

9. The complainant PW.1 denied the contents of

the complaint and states that, she has signed it on her

husband's instructions and she did not deny her signature

on the complaint. The Enquiry Officer, relying upon the

panchanama Ex.P4 and other documentary evidence has

come to the conclusion that, the complainant was credible

despite denial of its contents by the complainant. Thus,

preponderance of probabilities tilted in faovur of

Disciplinary Authority as the signature on the complaint

and the panchanama provided sufficient corroboration.

Even the evidence of PW.2 shows that, because of lapse

of time and vegetation growth at the site he could not

verify the original measurement. But, however, this did

not negate the documentary evidence such as the

measurement book (MB books) and the panchanama

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

which do demonstrate about the excess measurements.

The enquiry officer, applying the principles of

preponderance of probabilities, has rightly concluded that

the evidence on record supported the charges. The

enquiry officer relied upon the panchanama,

measurement books and other documents to conclude

that the petitioner had shown excess measurements

which lead to excess payment of Rs.33,102/-. Though the

petitioner contended that the work was executed as per

the guidelines and no excess payment is made, but, the

documentary evidence prima facie tilted in favour of the

disciplinary authority. The petitioner, by way of his

defence evidence examined witnesses and produced

documents to state that the work was executed as per

the guidelines and the payments were made through

RTGS to the labourers. However, the enquiry officer, after

weighing the evidence found that the defence evidence

did not outweigh the evidence presented by the

disciplinary authority. The principles of preponderance of

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

probabilities was rightly applied to conclude that charges

are proved and which is more likely to be true than not.

10. The Tribunal, in its adjudicatory capacity,

meticulously has scrutinized and evaluated the entirety of

the evidentiary material and has considered the

submissions of both the side before dismissing the

application of the petitioner. On scrupulous reading of the

Tribunal's order, it is judicially reasoned, meticulously

balanced and devoid of any legal infirmity or procedural

irregularity. The Tribunal in its wisdom appropriately

affirmed the findings of the enquiry officer and the

Disciplinary Authority which were grounded in a cogent

analysis of evidence on record. In the light of the

foregoing discussion, we find no compelling justification or

legal basis to interfere with or overturn the Tribunal's

well-considered decision.

11. In the light of the foregoing analysis, we

are of the considered opinion that impugned orders dated

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

10.3.2022 and 27.5.2023 are legally tenable, procedurally

sound and in consonance with the principles of natural

justice. The charges leveled against the petitioner were

substantiated on the strength of evidentiary material

adduced during enquiry proceedings and the penalty

imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the proved

misconduct. The petitioner is unable to establish any

manifest perversity, jurisdictional error or legal infirmity

in the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer, the

disciplinary Authority or the Tribunal. Consequentially, no

interference is called for with the impugned orders.

12. For the reasons discussed hereinabove

and resultantly, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The instant Writ Petition stands dismissed in its entirety.

(ii) The impugned order dated 27.5.2023 rendered by the Tribunal in Application NO.3611/2022 and order dated 10.3.2022

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9538-DB

issued by the respondent no.1 are hereby affirmed and upheld.

(iii) There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/-

(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

SK