Karnataka High Court
Sri. Veershetty Rakshe vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578
WP No. 200595 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.200595 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VEERSHETTY RAKSHE
S/O HANMANTHAPPA RAKSHE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HUMNABAD, BIDAR- 585 330.
RESIDING AT KOUTHA (K),
AURAD TALUK, BIDAR 585 421.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DHUTTARGAON
UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
Location: HIGH URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ROOM NO.436, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
9TH FLOOR AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU -560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR, A.G.A., FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578
WP No. 200595 of 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY DATED
27-04-2022 BEARING NO.24357 DMA 1 EQG 2018-19 PASSED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A), IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1.
2. The petitioner has assailed the penalty of censure
imposed in terms of order dated 27.04.2022 which is marked at
Annexure-A. Writ of mandamus also sought to direct the
respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion to
the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Environment) from
the date his juniors are promoted vide Annexure-N dated
04.12.2020.
3. It is noticed that the disciplinary enquiry was
initiated against the petitioner and an order came to be passed
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578
on 27.04.2022 imposing censure under Rule 8 of Karnataka
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) of the Rules,
1957. Before imposing the said penalty the disciplinary
authority has concluded that the petitioner has not caused any
loss either to the State or to the Gram Panchayat and there is
misappropriation of funds by the petitioner and decided to drop
the proceedings. However, having said so the penalty of
censure is imposed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
once the clean chit is given to the petitioner by the disciplinary
authority the penalty of censure could not have been imposed
at all. The only course open to the disciplinary authority was to
stay the proceedings without imposing any penalty. In
addition, he submits that though the penalty of censure has
been given effect to, same has to be obliterated to ensure the
same does not come in the way of the petitioner's promotion
and during the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry, the
decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee on
petitioner's promotion is kept in a sealed cover and to give
effect of the order in sealed cover the impugned order has to
be set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578
5. Learned counsel would also place reliance on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Ramchandra
C.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and another in
W.P.No.2694/2024, disposed of on 12.11.2024 and would
contend that in almost identical circumstances the Division
Bench has taken a view that though the penalty of censure
takes effect on the same day and it amounts to punishment
and same cannot come in the way of the employees' claim
regarding promotion.
6. This court has considered the aforementioned
judgment.
7. It is relevant to note that the disciplinary authority
has taken a view that no financial loss is caused to the State
from the Gram Panchayat and there is no misrepresentation of
funds by the petitioner and further there was a decision to drop
the decision against the petitioner. Having said so, the
disciplinary authority could not have imposed the penalty of
censure against the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order
imposing the penalty of censure is unsustainable and same is
quashed. Since the penalty is quashed, the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1578
authorities shall consider the claim of the petitioner for
promotion in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
9. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the
merits of the petitioner's claim relating to promotion.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BL
