Karnataka High Court

E S Prasanna vs State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2025

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                                             -1-
                                                     WP No.19651 of 2025




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                         PRESENT

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

                                            AND

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

                       WRIT PETITION No.19651 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1 . E. S. PRASANNA,
                       AGED 50 YEARS
                       S/O LATE SHRI KODANDA RAO,
                       C/O CHARLIE, CHIKKATHUR VILLAGE,
                       HARANGI ROAD, KUSHALNAGAR,
                       KARNATAKA-571234.
                       WORKING AS PC (DAR),
                       MADIKERI, KODAGU
                       (NOW DISMISSED FROM SERVICE)
Digitally signed                                            ...PETITIONER
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH     (BY SRI MOHANRAJ DORAISWAMY A., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   AND:

                   1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                       THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       KODAGU DIST., MADIKERI PINCODE-57120.

                   2 . INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                       SOUTHERN RANGE,
                       MYSORE DISTRICT-570019.
                                                          ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)
                                  -2-
                                           WP No.19651 of 2025



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH    THE   IMPUGNED    ORDER   DATED    17.04.2025
(ANNEXURE-A5) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL THEREBY
DIRECT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO RESTORE O.A No.2032-
2034 OF 2013 AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME ON MERITS.

      THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD                      AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.08.2025, THIS                         DAY
K. V. ARAVIND J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
             and
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

                        C.A.V. ORDER

         (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)


      Heard Sri A. Mohanraj Doraiswamy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned

Additional     Government    Advocate      appearing      for   the

respondents.


2.    This writ petition is filed challenging the order in M.A.

No.2/2025 in O.A. Nos.2032 to 2034/2013, dated 17.04.2025,

passed   by    the   Karnataka   State   Administrative   Tribunal,

Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').


3.    The brief facts are that the petitioner joined service as a

Police Constable in the year 1996. The petitioner was placed

under suspension on 01.04.2011 on the ground of unauthorized
                                -3-
                                           WP No.19651 of 2025



absence. A departmental enquiry was initiated in accordance

with Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary

Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'

for short). A charge sheet was drawn against the petitioner,

and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charge

proved. After issuance of a show cause notice, an order of

dismissal from service came to be passed against the petitioner

on 04.02.2012. The petitioner preferred O.A. Nos. 2032 to

2034/2013    before   the   Tribunal.   The   Tribunal,   however,

dismissed the applications on 11.04.2018 for non-prosecution.


4.   The petitioner filed M.A. No. 2/2025 seeking restoration

of O.A. Nos. 2032 to 2034/2013 along with an interlocutory

application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, under the

impugned order, rejected M.A. No.2/2025 on the ground of

delay. Hence, the present writ petition.


5.   Sri A. Mohanraj Doraiswamy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that the petitioner has diligently prosecuted

his case by filing the original application before the Appellate

Authority and thereafter before the Tribunal. It is submitted

that during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the

petitioner was also charge-sheeted before the Trial Court.
                                    -4-
                                              WP No.19651 of 2025



Though the original application was filed in the year 2013, the

same was not taken up for consideration for a considerable

period, as the matter was kept pending awaiting the outcome

of the criminal proceedings.


5.1   Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was informed

by his counsel appearing before the Tribunal that till the

adjudication of the criminal proceedings, the original application

would not be taken up for hearing. Believing such advice, the

petitioner did not follow-up the matter before the Tribunal. It is

further    submitted   that   in   November       2024,   the   criminal

proceedings culminated in an order acquitting the petitioner of

all the offences charged. When the order of acquittal was

produced before the Tribunal seeking adjudication of the

original application, the petitioner came to know that the said

application had already been dismissed for non-prosecution on

11.04.2018. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner preferred a

miscellaneous     application      along   with     an    interlocutory

application for condonation of delay, citing the aforesaid

reasons.


5.2   Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq and another
                                     -5-
                                                 WP No.19651 of 2025



vs. Munshilal and another [(1981) 2 SCC 788], to contend

that a party should not be made to suffer for lapses on the part

of his counsel. Further reliance is placed on State of

Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena and others [(1996) 6 SCC 417],

to contend that disciplinary proceedings ought to await the

outcome      of   criminal   proceedings       when    the   charges    are

identical.


5.3. Learned       counsel     further    submits     that   the   Tribunal,

without appreciating the bona fide reasons for not pursuing the

original application and the dismissal thereof on account of the

erroneous advice by the counsel representing the petitioner,

and   without      assigning     justifiable   reasons,      rejected   the

application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a

strong case on merits, and if the application is not considered

on merits, the rights of the petitioner would stand prejudiced,

causing irreparable hardship.


6.    Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2, while justifying the impugned order of

the Tribunal, submits that the departmental proceedings and

the criminal proceedings are independent of each other. It is

contended that the plea of the petitioner that he was informed
                                -6-
                                          WP No.19651 of 2025



by his counsel that the application before the Tribunal could not

be considered till disposal of the criminal proceedings is without

any basis. It is further submitted that the inordinate delay of

more than six years has not been satisfactorily explained.

Accordingly, it is urged that the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed.


7.    We have considered the submissions of learned counsel

for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate

for respondent Nos.1 and 2.


8.    The petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry in

the year 2011, and the Enquiry Report was submitted in the

same year. Consequent thereto, an order of dismissal from

service was passed on 04.02.2012. Immediately thereafter, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which

came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority on 07.08.2012.

The petitioner then preferred an application before the Tribunal

on 19.02.2013. The said application was ultimately dismissed

by the Tribunal on 11.04.2018.


9.    In the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted in the

criminal case in November 2024. Thereafter, the application

seeking restoration of O.A. Nos. 2032-2034/2013 was filed on
                                 -7-
                                             WP No.19651 of 2025



02.01.2025. The aforesaid dates are noted for the purpose of

examining the due diligence exercised by the petitioner in

prosecuting his cause. Though the application was filed before

the Tribunal in 2013 and the respondent filed its reply

statement on 19.12.2014, the matter was listed for hearing

only in December 2017, and thereafter in March 2018,

ultimately came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on

11.04.2018.


10.   Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner was diligent in prosecuting his rights and that the

application came to be rejected only on account of the

erroneous advice of his counsel to the effect that the Tribunal

would not consider the application till the conclusion of the

criminal proceedings. This contention, on the face of it, is

untenable. It is a well-settled position of law that criminal

proceedings and departmental enquiries are independent, and

the degree of proof required therein is altogether different.


11. The reason assigned by the petitioner for not prosecuting

the application is not acceptable to this Court. It is a settled

principle   that   an   aggrieved   party   must   be   afforded an

opportunity to ventilate his grievance; however, it necessarily
                                -8-
                                          WP No.19651 of 2025



follows that such party must also be diligent in exercising his

rights. On a consideration of the chronology of events, it is

evident that soon after the departmental enquiry held in 2011

and the order of dismissal passed on 04.02.2012, the petitioner

diligently exercised his right by preferring an appeal before the

departmental authority and, thereafter, by approaching the

Tribunal.


12.   From the order of the Tribunal, it can be gathered that

pleadings were completed in the year 2013, but the matter was

listed for hearing only in December 2017 and was ultimately

dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.04.2018. The petitioner

was acquitted in the criminal case in November 2024, and

immediately thereafter produced the order of acquittal before

the Tribunal, only to discover that his application had already

been dismissed. He then promptly took steps by filing an

application seeking restoration.


13.   Having regard to the above chronology, it cannot be said

that the petitioner has been indolent in prosecuting his case.

While it is necessary to afford the petitioner an opportunity, the

equities and interests of both the petitioner and the State are

required to be balanced. The balance can be struck by restoring
                                     -9-
                                                  WP No.19651 of 2025



the application before the Tribunal for adjudication on merits,

while at the same time denying the petitioner financial benefits

for the period between the date of dismissal of the application,

i.e., 11.04.2018, and the date of the final order to be passed

by the Tribunal, in case the petitioner succeeds before the

Tribunal.


14.   For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to entertain the

writ petition. Accordingly, the following:

                               ORDER

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 11.04.2018 in

O.A.Nos.2032-2034/2013 and order dated

17.04.2025 in M.A.No.2/2025 passed by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,

Bengaluru are set aside.

(iii) O.A.Nos.2032 to 2034/2013 is restored to file.

(iv) The contentions of both the parties are kept

open. This Court has not expressed any opinion

on merits.

(v) The petitioner, if succeeds in the application, is

not entitled to financial benefits from