[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ms Mangalagouri V Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 5023 of 2024
Reserved on : 09.01.2026
Pronounced on : 26.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 5023 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. MS. MANGALAGOURI V BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
D/O VENKATARAMANA V. BHAT,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (OOD),
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY BUILDING,
I FLOOR, ROOM No.F-232,
ASHOKA ROAD, TUMKUR-572101,
Digitally R/AT C/O SHIVAKUMAR,
signed by
VINUTHA B S WARD No.2, SLN LAYOUT,
Location: ANTHARASANAHALLI, ARAKERE POST,
High Court of TUMKUR-572106.
Karnataka
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
TOURISM DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
WP No. 5023 of 2024
2. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF TOURISM,
No.49, 2ND FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02/01/2024 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION No.3755/2022 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED 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 Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application
No.3755/2022 has preferred this writ petition questioning the
correctness of the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for
short, 'the Tribunal').
3. The petitioner, while working as superintendent in
the Department of Tourism was promoted as Assistant Director
and thereafter, she was placed under suspension on
06.06.2013, followed by charge memo dated 27.09.2013. The
petitioner submitted explanation to the charge memo. On
05.02.2014, the petitioner's suspension was revoked. The
enquiry officer was appointed on 31.01.2015. Total 35 charges
were framed out of which, enquiry report was submitted
holding 20 charges proved. Second show-cause notice was
issued on 06.12.2018 seeking explanation on the finding of the
enquiry officer. Considering the reply submitted on 21.12.2018,
the disciplinary authority by order dated 29.01.2019 imposed
penalty of reduction of time scale in the cadre of Assistant
Director to the lowest scale of pay in the cadre of Tourism
Officer permanently. The penalty order was subject matter of
challenge in Application No.792/2019 before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal set aside the order of penalty and directed
reconsideration. The review petition filed against the said order
came to be allowed and application was restored.
3.1 The Tribunal after restoration by order dated
23.04.2019, set aside the order of penalty and remitted to the
disciplinary authority for fresh consideration. The disciplinary
authority by order dated 12.06.2019 imposed same penalty as
was imposed earlier by reducing the time scale. This order
dated 12.06.2019 was subject matter of Application
No.3530/2019 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the
order of penalty with liberty to consider the reply filed by the
petitioner. The disciplinary authority on 22.09.2021 imposed
penalty of Censure and withholding of two annual increments
without cumulative effect. The Application No.3755/2022
challenging the order of penalty came to be dismissed by the
Tribunal against which the present petition.
4. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the findings in the enquiry report are
without any basis. It is submitted that the penalty imposed on
the enquiry report was set aside twice for reconsideration. It is
submitted that the disciplinary authority without considering
the contentions raised and the findings in the enquiry report is
without any evidence, while considering the imposition of
penalty for third time, imposed penalty of censure and
withholding of two annual increments without cumulative
effect. Learned counsel submits that the factum of modification
of penalty orders at the instance of the Tribunal would justify
that the enquiry report is not based on the proved evidence.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the penalty
imposed is though minor, the same has impacted the
promotional avenues of the petitioner. It is submitted that due
to the order of penalty, the petitioner is denied promotion when
the petitioner's juniors are promoted. It is submitted that the
Tribunal without considering the various contentions urged,
merely on the number of charges proved, proceeded to confirm
the penalty order. With the above submissions learned counsel
submits to allow the writ petition and to set aside the order of
penalty.
5. Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that
the enquiry report establishes 20 charges proved out of 35
charges against the petitioner. It is submitted that considering
the gravity and seriousness of the charges, major penalty of
reduction of time scale to the lowest scale of pay was ordered.
It is submitted that on repeated challenge and the orders of the
Tribunal, the imposition of penalty has been reconsidered by
the disciplinary authority. The imposition of penalty of censure
and withholding of two annual increments without cumulative
effect is minor penalty. It is submitted that having regard to
the seriousness and gravity of the charges proved against the
petitioner total numbering 20, the penalty imposed is very
lenient. It is submitted that the Tribunal considering various
other aspects in its discretion held that the penalty imposed is
reasonable and refused to interfere. With the above
submissions, learned AGA submits to dismiss the petition.
6. We have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending
enquiry on 06.06.2013 and charge memo was issued on
27.09.2013. Total 35 charges were framed against the
petitioner. Pending enquiry the suspension of the petitioner
was revoked and enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry
authority submitted enquiry report holding 20 charges proved
out of 35 charges against the petitioner. After issuance of
second show-cause notice, major penalty of reduction of time
scale in the cadre of Assistant Director to the lowest scale of
pay in the cadre of Tourist Officer permanently was imposed.
The said order was subject matter of Application No.792/2019
before the Tribunal, wherein the penalty was set aside directing
the disciplinary authority to modify the order. The said order
was recalled in the previous application filed by the petitioner
and the OA was restored. On restoration and reconsideration
of the application, the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty
and directed disciplinary authority to reconsider after
considering the reply. On reconsideration, the disciplinary
authority has imposed minimum penalty of censure and
withholding of two annual increments without cumulative
effect. While considering the correctness of the order of penalty
dated 22.09.2021, the Tribunal has meticulously re-examined
the findings recorded by the enquiry officer insofar as the
proved charges.
7.1 On consideration of the finding and the evidence
finding basis of the conclusion of the charges against the
petitioner, held that the punishment imposed is proportionate
and by taking lenient view. The Tribunal further held that the
charges proved against the petitioner are serious and grievous
in nature. Insofar as the contention regarding delay in
conclusion of enquiry proceedings, the Tribunal while
considering the delay has held that, the serious and grievous
nature of the charges cannot be overlooked and the aspect of
delay is to be considered on attending circumstances. In
support of such finding, the Tribunal has referred to various
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal further
held that the disciplinary authority in exercise of its discretion
has imposed the minimum penalty and the same cannot be said
to be excessive to the grievousness and the gravity of the
charges held to be proved.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contented before this Court that the case of the petitioner has
not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal.
9. On detailed scrutiny of the order passed by the
Tribunal, we notice that the Tribunal has looked into the finding
of the enquiry officer on each of its proved charges. On
consideration of the gravity of the charges and the extent of
evidence supporting the proved charge, the Tribunal held that
the charges proved are serious and grievous in nature.
However, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of
the penalty though it was minor in nature.
10. We have seen the charges proved and the
supporting evidence. We find no infirmities in the finding
recorded by the Tribunal. When the penalty imposed is
compared to the seriousness and gravity of the charges, we are
of the view that disciplinary authority has exercised its
maximum discretion to levy the minor penalty of censure and
withholding of two annual increments that too without
cumulative effect.
10.1 Further while judicial review, the Court cannot sit in
appeal against the findings of the enquiry officer and the
decision of the disciplinary authority. Interference can be made
by this Court only when the process of enquiry is found to be
not in accordance with law and cannot sit in appeal against the
finding of the enquiry. The finding of enquiry and the imposition
of penalty is fairly justifiable and no infirmities touching upon
any error or illegality in the process of the adjudication is
pointed out. In the absence of such fundamental error
demonstrated from the enquiry report, order of disciplinary
authority as well the order of the Tribunal, this Court need not
to interfere.
- 10 -
11. In the light of the above, we find no error or
infirmities in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The
writ petition is merit-less and accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
