[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Motilal Naik M vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
WP No. 1096 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO.1096 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MOTILAL NAIK M.,
S/O TAVARE NAIK
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.5000/2
'TULAJA KRUPA', 8TH CROSS,
SIDDAVEERAPPA EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
Digitally signed 2. SRI. H. DWARAKANTH
by DEVIKA M
S/O H. RAMACHAR
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA RETIRED ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RESIDING AT
C/O SOMASUNDAR RAO
FS-31, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
BEHIND VINAYAKA TEMPLE
IAF POST, VINAYAKANAGAR
BAGALUR CROSS, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 063.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
WP No. 1096 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2022 IN APPLICATION
NO.5866 AND 5867/2019 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN SO FAR AS
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO RECOVERY
OF RS.5,93,011 AND RS.4,48,070/- ALONG WITH 8%
INTEREST FROM 31.07.2007 FROM THE PENSIONARY
BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
WP No. 1096 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State/respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed praying this Court to
set aside the order dated 19.04.2022 in Application
No.5866 & 5867 of 2019, Annexure - A passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in so
far as dismissing the application with respect to recovery
of Rs.5,93,011/- and Rs.4,48,070/- along with 8% interest
from 31.07.2007 from the pensionary benefits of the
petitioners and consequently allow the application in full
with all consequential benefits including withheld pension
and pensionary benefits along with interest and grant such
other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The factual matrix of case is that the petitioners
working in the Public Works Department and petitioner
No.1 has retired from service as Executive Engineer on
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
30.04.2015 and petitioner No.2 has retired from service as
Assistant Executive Engineer on 31.12.2013. It is the case
of the petitioners that a departmental enquiry was initiated
against the petitioners and two others by the government
vide government order dated 27.01.2018 and these
petitioners were imposed with penalty of recovering sum
of Rs.5,93,011/- from the pensionary benefits admissible
to the petitioner No.2 and sum of Rs.4,48,070/- from the
pensionary benefits admissible to petitioner No.1 together
with interest at the 8% p.a., from 31.01.2017 till the date
of order and so also for withholding 5% of pension payable
to petitioner for a period of 2 years.
4. The counsel for petitioners would submits that
the charges are initiated against all the delinquent officials
and also counsel would submits that joint enquiry was
conducted and enquiry officer having recorded the
statement of witnesses and also considering the material
available on record, given the report in terms of Annexure
-A4 in coming to any conclusion that charges have not
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
been proved and the disciplinary authority having
considered the said report, issued second show cause
notice to all the delinquent officials vide Annexure-A5
dated 13.11.2014.
5. The counsel would submits that all of them
have given reply to the second showcase notice and the
government vide order dated 19.01.2016 exonerated two
of them by warning and in respect of these two petitioners
are concerned, other proceedings will be initiated against
these petitioners and subsequently, vide Annexure-A9 vide
order dated 27.01.2018 directed to make the payment
with interest and also imposed the penalty of 5% on the
pension for a period of 2 years, the same is challenged
before the Tribunal in filing application No.5866 &
5867/2019 and Tribunal partly allowed by setting aside
the order of imposing of penalty for a period of 2 years in
respect of the pensionary benefits, but did not set aside
the order of the government with regard to the direction
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
given to make the payment and hence, the present writ
petition is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the counsel appearing
for the petitioners before this Court is that common
charges are framed against all of them and also the
counsel would submits that joint enquiry was conducted
and enquiry officer submitted the report that there was no
any material to prove the charges. However, second show
cause notice was given to all of them and they have given
the same reply stating that work was carried out for the
reason that the soil was not strong and hence, work was
done with the prior oral approval. The counsel also would
submits that those who have exonerated by warning,
given the similar reply by explaining the circumstances
warranted in doing the excess work and payment and the
explanation given by all of them was similar, but while
passing an order vide Annexure-A8, both of them
particularly the Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive
Engineer were exonerated by warning, but when the
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
similar reply was given by these petitioners that work was
done with the approval of the higher officers, but an
erroneous observation is made that these two petitioners
have given wrong information.
7. The counsel would submits that even the
officials who have been exonerated have not stated
anything about the same in their reply statement. In the
reply statement they have stated that work was done in
the circumstances which was warranted to strengthen the
quality of the work and not for any other reasons. When
such being the case, when similar reply was given, there
cannot be any different yardsticks while considering the
explanation, but erroneously imposed the penalty and
recovery order. The counsel would submits that the
Tribunal while discussing the same also though discussed
in paragraph No.9, but not discussed the factual aspects
and only jumps to the conclusion that the decision was
taken by the disciplinary authority to record the finding
that charges against both the applicants herein are proved
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
and no such discussion at all. But, Tribunal comes to the
conclusion that after perusal of the entire material, do not
find any illegality or irregularity committed by the
disciplinary authority in concluding that the charges are
proved against the applicants herein and also imposing
penalty as against them and also comes to the conclusion
that did not find any error in the decision of the
government and while coming to such a conclusion by the
Tribunal, except that conclusion, there is no any discussion
at all and partly allowed the applications and hence, it
requires interference.
8. The counsel also in support of his argument
relies upon the judgment of Rajendra Yadav Vs/ State
of Madhyapradesh reported in (2013) 3 Supreme
Court cases 73. The counsel brought to notice of this
Court, paragraph No.9, 10, 11 and 12 and the same is
extracted to consider the issue involved in the matter.
" 9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are
equally placed; even among persons who are found
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can
also claim equality of treatment, if they can
establish discrimination while imposing punishment
when all of them are involved in the same incident.
Parity among co-delinquents has also to be
maintained when punishment is being imposed.
Punishment should not be disproportionate while
comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who
are parties to the same transaction or incident. The
disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment
which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for
serious offences and stringent punishment for
lesser offences.
10. The principle stated above is seen applied in
a few judgments of this Court. The earliest one
is DG of Police v. G. Dasayan wherein one Dasayan,
a police constable, along with two other constables
and one Head Constable were charged for the same
acts of misconduct. The disciplinary authority
exonerated two other constables, but imposed the
punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan
and that of compulsory retirement on the Head
Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of
justice, substituted the order of compulsory
retirement in place of the order of dismissal from
service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity
in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
11. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case the
workman was dismissed from service for proved
misconduct. However, few other workmen, against
whom there were identical allegations, were
allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary
retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this
Court directed that the workman also be treated on
the same footing and be given the benefit of
voluntary retirement from service from the month
on which the others were given the benefit.
12. We are of the view that the principle laid
down in the abovementioned judgments would also
apply to the facts of the present case. We have
already indicated that the action of the disciplinary
authority imposing a comparatively lighter
punishment on the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and
at the same time, harsher punishment on the
appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they
were all involved in the same incident.
Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal
by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from
service imposed on the appellant and order that he
be reinstated in service forthwith. The appellant is,
therefore, to be reinstated from the date on which
Arjun Pathak was reinstated and be given all
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
consequential benefits as were given to Arjun
Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be
no order as to costs."
9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State-respondents would
submits that while passing an order, Annexure A8 having
considered the reply submitted by these two petitioners,
comes to the conclusion that both of them have submitted
the wrong information to the higher officials and made the
excess payment and the same is discussed in detail in
respect of these two petitioners are concerned while
passing an order dated 19.01.2016. The counsel also
would submits that further proceedings was initiated and
ordered to pay the amount vide order dated 27.01.2018
wherein reasons also assigned for directing them to make
the payment with interest to the State Exchequer and
there was no any prior approval and only it is stated that
oral permission was taken and the same is not
substantiated and hence, it does not requires interference
of this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
10. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State-respondents and also
considering the principles laid down in the judgment
referred supra as well as considering the charges levelled
against all of them and also the proceedings at Annexure
A8 and A9, the point that would arise for the consideration
of this Court are:
i) Whether the Annexure-A8 and A9 are
sustainable in the eye of law and
consequently whether the order passed by
the Tribunal requires interference of this
Court?
ii) What Order?
Point No.1 and 2:
11. Having considered the submission of respective
counsels and also on perusal of material on record, there
is no dispute that similar charges are framed against all
the four. It is also not in dispute that in terms of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
Annexure-A4, the enquiry officer who conducted the joint
enquiry submitted the report that charges are not proved,
however, a second show cause notice was issued against
all of them vide Annexure- A5 dated 13.11.2014. It is also
not in dispute that all of them have given the common
explanation and explanation given by both the petitioners
are also placed before this Court as per Annexure - A6 and
A7.
12. Now during the course of argument, the counsel
appearing for the petitioners placed on record copies of
articles of charges dated 20.03.2012 and also copy of the
reply given by DGO-1 dated 02.02.2015 to the second
showcase notice. The counsel brought to notice of this
Court that the DGO-1 has also given the similar reply and
in the reply, he categorically explained the reason for
doing the additional work that is extra work and payment
is concerned and nowhere it is stated that without his
permission, work was done but the statement is very clear
that additional work was carried out in order to strengthen
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
the work and to maintain the quality and no different reply
is given compared to these two petitioners. When such
reply was given, but the respondent while issuing the
Annexure-A9 comes to a other conclusion that wrong
information was given to the higher authorities and the
same is not stated by the DGO-1 that wrong information
was given and got the work done and excess payment was
made, but similar reply was given defending the work
done by these two petitioners by the DGO-1 and 3 and
when such similar reply was given, committed an error in
issuing Annexure-A8 exonerating the DGO -1 and 3 that
there was no any mistake on their part, but comes to the
conclusion that wrong information was given to them and
when DGO-1 and 3 not stated the same while giving their
reply such an order, it is presumed that wrong information
was given and the very exonerating of the DGO - 1 and 3
and not exonerating these petitioners is nothing but
double yardstick while considering the reply. There cannot
be any double yardstick when the charges are framed and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
similar charges are framed and exempting two of them
and penalizing other two. There is a force in the contention
of the counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon
the judgment which has been referred in paragraph No.9
to 12 wherein Apex Court held that the doctrine of equality
applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons
who are found guilty. The persons who have been found
guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can
establish discrimination while imposing the punishment
when all of them are involved in the same incident, parity
among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when
punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be
disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-
delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or
incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose
punishment which is disproportionate i.e., lesser
punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment
for lesser offences. In the present case on hand also when
the similar charges were framed and even though similar
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
explanation was given, but the reply was accepted by the
respondent in respect of DGO - 1 and 3 and in respect of
these petitioners have not been accepted, it is nothing but
double yardstick while applying yardstick in considering.
When even similar charges are framed and similar
explanation is given, ought to have been accepted the
explanation given by these two petitioners also when the
other two are accepted.
13. It is pertinent to note that even DGO - 1 and 3
also categorically stated that work was done and even
stated in the reply that work was carried out and the
reason also given for doing the additional work in order to
strengthen the work carried out that too for the purpose of
maintaining with regard to the technical issues. When such
being the case, issuance of Annexure-A9 making
discrimination against these two petitioners are not
sustainable in the eye of law and hence, it requires
interference of this Court. The Tribunal while passing an
order not appreciated the factual aspects of the case and
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
jumped into the conclusion that a decision was taken by
the disciplinary authority to record the finding that the
charges against both the petitioner herein are proved, but
while coming to such conclusion, not discussed the factual
aspects of the case, except mentioning that after perusal
of the entire material, do not find any illegality or
irregularity committed by the disciplinary authority in
concluding that the charges are proved against the
applicants herein and also imposing the penalty as against
them except as observed in paragraph No.9, no other
reasons are assigned. When such being the case, the
Tribunal also not properly appreciated the factual aspects
while coming to such a conclusion and only carried away
with the reasoning given in Annexure-A8 and fails to take
note of different yardstick is applied when the similar reply
was given by all of them and also fails to take note of all of
them have defended the act that due to technical reasons
and to improve the quality of work, the said work was
done and the same is not discussed in the order of the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
Tribunal. When such being the case, Tribunal committed
an error partly allowing the applications and ought to have
allowed the applications in entirety as sought by the
petitioners. Hence, we answer the point accordingly.
14. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The order of the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal in Application
No.5866 and 5867/2019 dated 19.04.2022
is modified by allowing the applications in
entirety.
iii) The Annexure-A9 is quashed as not
sustainable in the eye of law.
iv) The respondents are directed to give all
benefit in favour of the petitioners in
accordance with law in view of quashing of
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11012-DB
HC-KAR
Annexure - A9 and modifying the order of
the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
