Karnataka High Court
Smt Soumya vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
WP No. 202624 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.202624 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SOUMYA W/O MAHESH,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
NOW WORKING AT IDAPANUR,
POLICE STATION (L & O)
TALUK AND DIST. RAICHUR-584105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
COURT OF HOME DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
EASTERN RANGE,
BELLARY-583101.
3. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY/
COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY DIVISION,
BELLARY-583101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
WP No. 202624 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. ENQUIRY OFFICER AND
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICER,
RAICHUR AT RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE ORDER TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
BEARING NO. DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:01/E«/¹§âA¢-2/2025, N.©.£ÀA.103/2025,
DATED 25.03.2025 VIDE ANNEUXURE-Q PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.
¸ÀASÉå:gÁG«/E«/01/2025 DATED 06.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-R,
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4. II) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
REMARKS/OBSERAVATION AT PARA-16 TO 18 AND ORDER IN
SO FAR AS DIRECTIONS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
CRL.R.P.NO.28/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, AND
COMMUNICATION LETTER BEARING NO.1824/ADMN/2024
DATED 22.10.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
WP No. 202624 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned petition is filed seeking quashment of
the order initiating disciplinary proceedings bearing
No.01/E«/¹§âA¢-2/2025, N.©.£ÀA.103/2025 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.03.2025
as per Annexure-Q passed by the second respondent and
the impugned notice bearing No.gÁG«/E«/01/2025 dated
06.08.2025 vide Annexure-R issued by the fourth
respondent. The petitioner is also seeking quashment of
the impugned remarks/observations made at paras-16 to
18 and order insofar as directing action against the
petitioner as per Annexure-K.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner was appointed as a Police Sub-
Inspector on 16.07.2016 and was serving as the Station
House Officer of Sindhanuru Town Police Station from
04.10.2021. A criminal complaint in P.C.No.270/2016,
involving multiple accused, had been referred for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Upon
completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed
against certain accused persons for offences punishable
under Sections 120(B), 465, 471, 406 and 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. On 13.10.2021, the FSL report pertaining to the
said case was received by the petitioner from the office of
the Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, the report
was admittedly not forwarded to the jurisdictional
Magistrate. Consequently, the learned Magistrate, by order
dated 07.01.2022, allowed the discharge application and
discharged all the accused on the ground that no sufficient
incriminating material was placed before the Court to
justify continuation of proceedings. Aggrieved by the said
order, the State preferred Criminal Revision Petition
No.28/2022.
4. In the backdrop of the fact that the original
document and the FSL report were not forwarded to the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
Magistrate till 07.01.2022, the learned Sessions Judge
took serious note of the lapse, attributing it to the conduct
of the petitioner, and issued a show-cause notice dated
19.09.2024 alleging negligence and dereliction of duty.
The petitioner submitted a reply dated 07.10.2024 stating
that she had orally directed one G.Prakash, PC No.413,
who was assisting her, to submit the FSL report, and that
any delay was solely attributable to the subordinate officer
and not to her.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, in the revision
proceedings, recorded observations at paragraphs 16 to
18 holding that the petitioner had been negligent in the
discharge of her duties and directed the second
respondent-Inspector General of Police to take appropriate
action. Pursuant thereto, a communication dated
22.10.2024 was issued to the second respondent. A
preliminary enquiry was thereafter conducted by the Police
Inspector, who, in his report dated 01.12.2024, concluded
that the petitioner was negligent and derelict in duty.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
Based on this report, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated as per Annexure-Q and a disciplinary notice was
issued as per Annexure-R.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed
the impugned action principally on two grounds:
(i) that the show-cause notice issued by the
learned Sessions Judge during revisional
proceedings, and the consequential
communication of the second respondent/IGP,
are without jurisdiction and therefore illegal,
thereby vitiating the subsequent disciplinary
action; and
(ii) that the petitioner has been denied a
meaningful and effective opportunity to defend
herself, and that the material relied upon does
not constitute evidence sufficient in law to
sustain a finding of negligence.
7. In support of these submissions, learned
counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
Shekhar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal Nos.388-389/2024,
decided on 22.11.2024) and the judgment of the
Chhattisgarh High Court in Lambodar Patel vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors., [(2016) 03 CHH CK 0026]. A
further contention is raised that the explanation dated
07.10.2024, purported to have been submitted in
response to the Sessions Judge's show-cause notice, was
not authored by the petitioner but was forged by her
subordinate. It is therefore contended that there is a
patent violation of procedural fairness, inasmuch as, the
petitioner was denied the opportunity to offer a genuine
explanation which could have averted the initiation of
disciplinary proceedings.
8. Placing reliance on the above authorities, it is
argued that there was absolutely no material before the
learned Sessions Judge to justify the issuance of a show-
cause notice to the petitioner or the consequential
direction to the second respondent to initiate action. If the
impugned proceedings are permitted to stand, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
petitioner would suffer grave prejudice affecting her
service career in the Police Department.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader, adverting to the observations of the learned
Sessions Judge in paragraphs 16 to 18, submits that the
Sessions Court has clearly found the petitioner guilty of
dereliction of duty. Despite having received the FSL report,
the petitioner failed to forward it to the Magistrate without
any justification. Acting on the judicial direction issued by
the learned Sessions Judge, the second respondent rightly
initiated proceedings. It is therefore argued that the scope
of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is extremely limited and that no interference with the
ongoing disciplinary proceedings is warranted.
10. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides,
the following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether, in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this
Court can quash Annexure-Q, Annexure-R and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
the impugned observations recorded in
Criminal Revision Petition No.28/2022?
ii. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the petitioner are vitiated for want of
jurisdiction or on account of breach of the
principles of natural justice so as to warrant
interference at this stage?
Findings on both the points:
11. Before this Court delves into the matter, it
would be apposite for this Court to extract the
observations made by the Revisional Court/learned
Sessions Judge at paragraphs-16 to 18 in Criminal
Revision Petition No.28/2022, as well as the relevant
operative portion of the order. The same is extracted and
reads as under:
"16. The PSI, received the notice on 26-09-2024
and given her explanation dated 07-10-2024. In the
explanation the PSI, has stated that, she had instructed
PC No.413/G. Prakash who was the assistant to submit
the FSL report and original records to the court orally
and he did not produce. She was under work pressure
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
and not verified whether PC No.413 submitted records
to court. On these explanation, the PSI prayed to drop
the proposed action.
17. There was legal obligation on the PSI/Smt.
Soumya to produce the FSL report and original records
before court immediately as the criminal case was
registered based on charge sheet filed by her
predecessor in office. The responsibility should not and
ought not shifted to police constable for production of
records. The work pressure is not the ground to keep
the original records in the police station till discharge of
accused. There was serious allegation against accused in
the charge sheet. If the State not prepared the present
Revision Petition, the accused/respondents could have
scot free. The State has incurred extra expense to file
revision petition. Having regard to these facts, I am of
the opinion that explanation given by Smt. Soumy, PSI
is not acceptable. Accordingly such explanations are not
accepted.
18. The lapse on the part of Smt. Soumya, PSI
shall have to be reported to Inspector General of Police
Ballary for taking action against her in accordance with
law. Court feels that, recommendation has to be made
to take action against Smt. Soumya, PSI.
Extract of the relevant Operative portion:
Send copy of this order to Inspector General of
Police Eastern Range, Ballary with recommendation
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
along with copy of show cause notice and reply given by
Smt. Soumya, PSI to take action against Smt. Soumya,
PSI in accordance with law with a request to submit
report about the action taken."
12. The above extracted observations recorded by
the learned Sessions Judge are the subject matter of
challenge in the present writ petition. As noted in the said
observations, it is not in dispute that the FSL report dated
28.07.2021, along with the original documents, was
received in the petitioner's office on 13.10.2021.
Admittedly, these documents were not forwarded to the
jurisdictional Magistrate until the discharge application
came to be adjudicated. Whether non-production of the
FSL report was decisive in the order of discharge or
whether its timely submission would have altered the
outcome are matters that cannot be examined in the
present proceedings under Article 226. However, the fact
remains that the report was withheld from 13.10.2021 and
was not produced before the competent Court at any
material point of time, including as late as 24.04.2024 or
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
08.10.2024. In these circumstances, it was well within the
competence of the learned Sessions Judge, exercising
revisional jurisdiction, to notice and comment upon such
lapse. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge
expressing strong disapproval of the petitioner's conduct
do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or legal
impropriety warranting interference. Accordingly, the
prayer for expunging the remarks made in Criminal
Revision Petition No.28/2022 is wholly misconceived and
does not merit acceptance.
13. The fresh explanation now sought to be
furnished by the petitioner is a matter that must
appropriately be examined by the Enquiry Officer in the
disciplinary proceedings. It is trite law that the writ
jurisdiction of this Court in matters relating to issuance of
show-cause notices, charge sheets and initiation of
departmental enquiries is extremely limited. Ordinarily, no
writ petition lies to quash a show-cause notice or charge
sheet unless it is demonstrated that the authority issuing
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
it had no jurisdiction or the action is ex facie illegal. This
Court does not sit as an appellate forum to re-appreciate
evidence or to adjudicate factual disputes. The Court's
supervisory role under Article 226 is confined to examining
the decision-making process, and interference is justified
only where the action suffers from a jurisdictional error,
procedural irregularity, breach of natural justice, or where
the finding is based on no evidence, or is perverse,
arbitrary, or shocking to the judicial conscience.
14. The petitioner has failed to establish that the
second respondent lacked jurisdiction to initiate
departmental proceedings. The observations of the learned
Sessions Judge at paragraphs-16 to 18 of the revisional
order, directing the second respondent/IGP to take
appropriate action, and consequent communication to the
IGP dated 22.10.2024, constitute administrative steps
taken in furtherance of judicial observations. The
disciplinary action initiated by the second respondent is
thus not only within jurisdiction but is a natural
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
administrative consequence of the findings recorded by
the revisional Court.
15. The contention that although a show-cause
notice was issued by the learned Sessions Judge, the reply
dated 07.10.2024 was not authored by the petitioner but
by her subordinate officer, is a matter involving disputed
facts. Such a disputed question cannot be examined in writ
jurisdiction. This plea remains open for the petitioner to
establish in the departmental proceedings by adducing
cogent evidence demonstrating that the explanation
submitted before the learned Sessions Judge was neither
authored nor authorised by her. As matters stand, the
record reflects that the learned Sessions Judge provided
an opportunity to the petitioner and a reply was indeed
furnished, wherein the delay was attributed to workload
and inadvertence. The petitioner now seeks to retract from
that position, which is a serious allegation and must be
substantiated before the Enquiry Officer, not in these
proceedings.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
16. Mere recording of adverse remarks by the
learned Sessions Judge, followed by initiation of
departmental proceedings by the competent authority,
does not by itself constitute a violation of the principles of
natural justice. The petitioner will have a full and effective
opportunity to defend herself before the Enquiry Officer
and before the disciplinary authority, once the charge
sheet is served and proceedings commence. At this
preliminary stage, no prejudice is shown to have been
caused merely by the initiation of the process.
17. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered view that neither the observations
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, nor the
departmental enquiry initiated by respondent No.2, nor
the consequent notice issued by respondent No.4, warrant
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner
has not demonstrated any lack of jurisdiction, procedural
violation, or legal infirmity in the challenged actions. The
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7000
HC-KAR
steps taken by the second respondent are clearly
responsive to and triggered by the judicial observations of
the revisional Court. The petitioner has thus failed to make
out any case for interference at this stage.
18. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the allegations against the petitioner, liberty is reserved to
her to contest the departmental proceedings and raise all
permissible defences, including those articulated in the
present writ petition. For the foregoing reasons, the writ
petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NB
CT:SI
