Karnataka High Court
Shri Hanumantharaya B vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11145-DB
CCC No. 402 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CCC NO. 402 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI HANUMANTHARAYA B
S/O BHEEMARAYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CIVIL)
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
BENGALURU REGION, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560011.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by PRABHAKAR
SWETHA
KRISHNAN
Location: High 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court of
Karnataka REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001.
....PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
2. SRI S R UMASHANKAR
IAS, SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11145-DB
CCC No. 402 of 2024
3. SRI BANADARANGAIAH
THE ADDL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY
(INCHARGE) INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT) (POLICE
SERVICES-A)
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
4. SRI ALOK MOHAN I P S
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KARNATAKA STATE
NO.2 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560002.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT
PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO PUNISH
THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDERS OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.14777/2022 DATED
23.01.2023 AND R.P.NO.116/2023 DATED 05.01.2024
(ANNEXURES A AND C) AFTER ISSUING NOTICE TO THE
ACCUSED AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE
ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11145-DB
CCC No. 402 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Rajagopal along
with learned advocate Mr. P.N. Nanja Reddy for the complainant
and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen
Chandrashekar for the respondents.
2. While disposing of the writ petition, the Division Bench of this
Court, by the order dated 23.01.2023, inter alia observed and
directed as under,
"5. On perusal of Annexure - A17, it is seen that
though posting is on independent charge on pay
scale specified therein, it is not seriously disputed
that the officers are juniors to the petitioner. It also
transpires that no charge memo is pending as on
date. It is also not in dispute that sufficient
vacancies are available. On assessing the facts,
we are of the opinion that the case of petitioner
could have been considered by the respondent,
instead of adopting such a approach. It is needless
NC: 2025:KHC:11145-DB
to state that no right of promotion is vested in an
employee so long as his seniority is not violated.
6. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion
that the writ petition be disposed of by setting aside
the order of the Tribunal and further directing the
respondents to treat the present application as a
representation for consideration of petitioner's
application on par with his juniors as noted as per
Annexure - A17. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal is set
aside.
The respondents are directed to treat the
application as representation and consider the
case of the petitioner in accordance with law and
pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with
law within three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
After having dictated the order, the learned
AGA points out that indeed the articles of charges
have been issued on 07.09.2020, in that view of
the matter, the above order is recalled. The
counsel for the Petitioner has all along been
contending that no charge memo has been issued.
The petitioner was duty bound to be fair to the
Court, but we find the Petitioner has attempted to
suppress information and mislead the Court. The
order of the Tribunal calls for no interference. Writ
petitions stand rejected."
3. In this petition, the non-compliance of the above directions
are complained of.
NC: 2025:KHC:11145-DB
4. In response to the contempt petition, compliance affidavit
came to be filed by respondent No.2 along with the copy of the
endorsement/order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the competent
authority of the Home Department (Police Services-A). In the said
order, Rule 2 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Regulation of Pay,
Pension and Promotion) Rules, 1978 was referred to note that the
provision for retrospective promotion is only for certain instances in
the Rule. The complainant was communicated that his request
dated 22.01.2024 was examined as per the provisions of the said
Rule and that it was not possible, in view of absence of provision,
to give retrospective promotion to the complainant.
4.1 It was further stated in the said endorsement/order that no
officer junior to him was considered for promotion and no junior in
the seniority list of the police inspector cadre has been promoted to
the cadre of DySP (Civil). It was also recorded that departmental
inquiry was pending against the complainant and in the meeting of
the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 08.01.2020, the
complainant's case for promotion was not considered and that,
after the inquiries are completed, it will be considered as per the
Rules.
NC: 2025:KHC:11145-DB
5. In view of the above endorsement/order which marks
compliance of the directions of learned Single Judge, the present
contempt petition does not survive.
6. Learned advocate for the complainant, however, submitted
that the complainant has grievance about the grounds mentioned in
the endorsement/order for denial of promotion.
6.1 In this regard, it is observed, without expressing or going into
the merits, that it will be open for the complainant to have a
recourse of independent remedy to challenge the
endorsement/order on its merits and in accordance with law.
7. With the above observations, the contempt petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
KPS
