[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Director General And vs Rajashekhar Gouda Patil S/O. ... on 5 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1647-DB
WP No. 100376 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
WRIT PETITION NO. 100376 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NORTH RANGE, BELAGAVI-590 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
BELAGAVI-590 001.
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
... PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GA)
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
AND:
1. SRI. RAJASHEKHAR GOUDA PATIL
S/O. SOMANGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1647-DB
WP No. 100376 of 2022
HC-KAR
1A. RAMAMANI
W/O RAJASHEKAR GOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. GORBAL, TQ. SOUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591 126.
1B. ABHISHEKGOUDA
S/O RAJASHEKAR GOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 13 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. GORBAL, TQ. SOUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591 126.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
R1A)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN
APPLICATION NO.6750/2018 DATED 16-12-2019 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT
AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 21.01.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1647-DB
WP No. 100376 of 2022
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
1. The Respondent herein filed Application No.
6750/2018 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Belagavi (in short, 'KAT'), challenging orders dated 29.06.2017,
13.10.2017, and 19.06.2018 passed by the Appellants, imposing
and confirming his compulsory retirement from service. The KAT
allowed the application vide its order dated 06.12.2019, set aside
the orders under challenge and directed the Appellants to
reinstate the Respondent in his original position with all
consequential benefits except salary. Aggrieved by this, the
Appellants have preferred the present appeal.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, the Respondent
died, and his legal representatives were brought on record.
3. Sri G.H. Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government
Advocate, submitted that the inquiry established the
Respondent's guilt of unauthorized absence from duty, a serious
misconduct unbecoming of a disciplined force like the police. He
contended that the Appellants, considering this and the
Respondent's past conduct, ordered compulsory retirement,
which is not punitive. He further argued that the charges and
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1647-DB
WP No. 100376 of 2022
HC-KAR
action were in accordance with rules, but the KAT ignored
conclusive findings of misconduct, failed to properly appreciate
the facts, and erred in interfering with the orders.
4. Per contra, Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned Counsel
for the legal representatives of the Respondent, supported the
KAT's findings in setting aside the orders and directing
reinstatement. He submitted that the Respondent was absent for
only 263 days due to illness, and the compulsory retirement
relied on prior unauthorized absences, not part of the charges in
the inquiry. Thus, the KAT's conclusion was proper and no
grounds exist to interfere.
5. Admittedly, the Respondent, a Police Constable since
2002, remained absent from duty without authorization or
intimation to higher authorities for 263 days from 15.12.2015 to
25.07.2016. Appellant No. 3 initiated an inquiry vide order dated
26.07.2016, appointing the Circle Inspector of Mudalagi Police
Station as Inquiry Officer. A charge memo dated 20.08.2016 was
served on the Respondent, on 04.09.2016. The Inquiry Officer
submitted a report on 19.05.2017 holding the charges proved.
Appellant No.3 issued a second show-cause notice on
31.05.2017 proposing dismissal. The Respondent replied on
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1647-DB
WP No. 100376 of 2022
HC-KAR
08.06.2017 seeking exoneration. After considering the reply and
hearing him, Appellant No.3 imposed compulsory retirement vide
order dated 29.06.2017. The Respondent's appeal to Appellant
No.2 was dismissed on 13.10.2017 and his revision to Appellant
No.1 was rejected on 19.06.2018. Aggrieved, he filed Application
No.6750/2018 before the KAT, which was allowed vide the
impugned order.
6. The impugned order and contentions in this appeal
make it clear that the Respondent raised no grievance regarding
lack of fair trial, mala fides, or bias in the inquiry or penalty
imposition. His sole argument was that his explanation for
absence was not properly considered and the penalty was
unlawful.
7. Paragraph 9 of the impugned order sets out the
KAT's reasons for interference:
"... From going through the second show cause
notice and the order, it is clear that the 3rd
respondent has indicated the penalty of dismissal
against the applicant in the second show cause
notice and also there is no mention whatsoever
about the past allegations or conduct referred in
para 3(2) of the impugned order, wherein item
No.3, he mentioned as 1, 2, 3 & 5 and mention
that the applicant has absented for 1142 days
earlier and said period is treated as leave
without allowance. That is made the basis for
passing the impugned order imposing penalty of
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1647-DB
WP No. 100376 of 2022
HC-KAR
compulsory retirement, thereby, it is clear that
the said action is contrary to the law laid down
by the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh
Dahiya. ..."
8. The decision in Mahesh Dahiya [Civil Appeal No.
10913 of 2016 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 25742 of 2015)]
pertains to non-compliance with natural justice principles, unlike
the present case. Here, the Respondent appeared before the
Inquiry Officer on 05.11.2016, submitted an unconditional
written admission of the charges, and gave a statement
admitting them. The Inquiry Officer reported the charges proved
to Appellant No.3. Even after the second show-cause notice, the
Respondent offered no satisfactory explanation, merely pleading
leniency citing personal and financial problems for his absence.
9. It is well settled that the legal test to determine the
validity of compulsory retirement order, focusing on procedural
fairness and public interest rather than treating it as punishment.
If such order is based on the authority's bona fide opinion,
supported by substantial, unbiased evidence and genuine public
interest, courts will not interfere. Judicial review is limited to
ascertaining whether the authority applied its mind reasonably
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1647-DB
WP No. 100376 of 2022
HC-KAR
without mala fides; interference is warranted only if arbitrary or
punitive.
10. Here, the Respondent - a Police Constable, remained
absent from duty without authorization for 263 days. He received
all communications including a notice dated 06.02.2016 requiring
him to report within 7 days. Such notice was served on
14.03.2016. Yet, he reported to duty only on 04.09.2016.
Notably, he offered no explanation for his absence before the
Inquiry Officer, in his reply to second show-cause notice, appeal,
or revision to Appellants Nos.1 to 3. Only before the KAT, did
the Respondent first cite ground of illness. Two medical
certificates and a CT scan report produced before the KAT did not
substantiate a valid reason for the Respondent's prolonged
unauthorized absence.
11. The record further reveals poor past conduct of the
Respondent, i.e, unauthorized absences totaling 1,142 days
between 12.06.2010 to 22.05.2015, three major penalties, and
four minor penalties. Despite this, Appellant No.3 leniently
imposed compulsory retirement instead of dismissal and did not
withhold pension or gratuity. The KAT was thus not justified in
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1647-DB
WP No. 100376 of 2022
HC-KAR
interfering with the Appellants' well-reasoned, non-punitive
orders aimed at administrative efficacy.
12. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 16.12.2019 passed
in Application No.6750/2018 by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Belagavi is quashed.
Consequently, the Orders dated 19.06.2018,
13.10.2017 and 29.06.2017 passed by the
Appellants against the Respondent are
restored.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
Vb/-
CT:BCK
