[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Omkarappa K H vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 26076 of 2025
Reserved on : 18.02.2026
Pronounced on : 11.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 26076 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. OMKARAPPA K. H.,
S/O TAILOR HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR,
LOCAAL AUDIT CIRCLE,
SHIMOGA577203,
RESIDING AT
LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE OFFICE QUARTERS,
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD,
VIDYANAGAR, SHIMOGGA-577203.
Digitally ...PETITIONER
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
(BY SRI MAHESH L., ADVOCATE)
High Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
(ADMINISTRATION AND ADVANCES),
VIDHANA SOUDA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/01/2025 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL IN OA No.4030/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS THE
SAME IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE
SETTLED LAW.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
K.V. ARAVIND J., MADE 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 L. Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the respondent.
2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.4030/2024
has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order
dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. The facts, in brief, are that while the petitioner was
working as Chief Accounts Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Chitradurga,
a charge memo was issued to him. The petitioner submitted a
detailed reply to the charge memo. An Enquiry Officer was
thereafter appointed, and upon conclusion of the enquiry, a
report was submitted holding the charge proved against the
petitioner.
3.1 The Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice, to
which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply contending that
the charges had been levelled with an intention to victimise
him. The Disciplinary Authority, upon consideration of the
enquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner,
imposed the penalty of withholding four annual increments with
cumulative effect by order dated 04.07.2024. The said order
was the subject matter of challe
4. Sri L. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the allegation regarding misutilisation
of funds under the MGNREGA Scheme had already been
examined by the Ombudsman, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya, and
therefore, a parallel enquiry by the Lokayukta in respect of the
very same incident was impermissible.
4.1 It is further contended that the Ombudsman, upon
enquiry, did not find any fault on the part of the petitioner and
had, in fact, given him a clean chit. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the alleged work.
Even assuming that any misappropriation is established, unless
there is material to demonstrate the petitioner's involvement in
the alleged work, he cannot be subjected to disciplinary enquiry
or penalty.
4.2 It is also submitted that the enquiry report has been
submitted mechanically and that the Disciplinary Authority,
without proper application of mind, has imposed the penalty.
According to the learned counsel, the findings recorded in the
enquiry report are not supported by any evidence to
substantiate the charge against the petitioner.
4.3 It is further contended that the Tribunal, while dismissing
the application, has failed to examine the correctness and
legality of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the
Disciplinary Authority. On these grounds, learned counsel prays
that the writ petition be allowed and the order imposing penalty
be set aside.
5. Per contra, Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent, submits that the Enquiry Officer, upon
appreciation of the material on record, has recorded a finding
that the charge stood proved against the petitioner. The
evidence on record, according to the learned counsel, clearly
establishes the petitioner's involvement in the alleged
misappropriation of funds.
5.1 It is further contended that the report of the Ombudsman
has no bearing on the disciplinary enquiry initiated under the
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1957 (for short "CCA Rules"). The scope and object of
the proceedings before the Ombudsman are distinct and serve
a different purpose, whereas the disciplinary proceedings under
the said Rules are independent in nature.
5.2 On these submissions, the learned Additional Government
Advocate prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the writ papers.
7. The petitioner was issued a charge memo dated
19.03.2019, pursuant to which a departmental enquiry was
conducted. The Enquiry Officer, upon conclusion of the enquiry,
held that the charges levelled against the petitioner (DGO-II)
stood proved. In the course of the enquiry, the Disciplinary
Authority examined two witnesses PW1 & PW2 and marked
documents at Exs.P1 to P22. The petitioner examined himself
as DW.1, and another DGO was examined as DW.2. On behalf
of the defence, documents at Exs.D1 to D12 were marked.
7.1 Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence,
the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that no spot inspection
had been conducted prior to granting permission to carry out
the works. It was further noticed that the works under the
MGNREGA Scheme were not inspected and that due diligence
had not been exercised while approving the work estimates.
7.2 After receipt of the enquiry report, a second show-cause
notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority, to which the
petitioner submitted a detailed reply. The Disciplinary
Authority, upon consideration of the enquiry report, the
evidence on record, and the reply submitted by the petitioner,
concluded that the petitioner had granted permission for the
work without conducting a spot inspection. It was also observed
that there was no material on record to establish completion of
the work. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the
penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative
effect.
8. The primary contention urged by the petitioner is that the
very same irregularities/allegations had earlier been enquired
into by the Ombudsman, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya. It is
contended that the Ombudsman, upon investigation, did not
find any fault on the part of the petitioner, though certain
penalties were levied on other officers.
9. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the said contention,
has held that the enquiry conducted by the Ombudsman and
the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the report of
the Lokayukta operate in distinct fields and serve different
purposes. The Tribunal has further recorded that the findings in
the enquiry report, the recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta,
and the imposition of penalty are based on substantiated
evidence on record.
10. We have perused the enquiry report, the findings
recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the report of
the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has examined the allegation
of misappropriation of funds. The Enquiry Officer, however, has
recorded findings with regard to the irregularities in the
execution of the works and the role attributed to the petitioner
therein.
11. It is well settled that the strict rules of evidence are not
applicable to disciplinary proceedings. The material on record is
required to satisfy the test of preponderance of probabilities.
Further, neither the Tribunal nor this Court, in exercise of
judicial review, can sit in appeal over the findings recorded by
the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. The scope of
interference is confined to examining whether there is any
evidence to sustain the charge.
12. In the present case, it cannot be said that the findings
are based on no evidence. Sufficient material is available on
record to support the conclusions arrived at in the departmental
enquiry. Interference by this Court is warranted only in rare
cases, and that too with respect to the decision-making process
and not the decision itself.
13. The object of an enquiry under the CCA Rules is to
examine the conduct of a public servant in discharge of official
duties. The enquiry conducted by the Ombudsman into the
alleged misappropriation of funds operates in a different sphere
and has no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings initiated
under the CCA Rules. The charge against the petitioner must be
examined strictly within the framework of the said Rules and
not beyond.
14. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on the oral and
documentary evidence available on record. No demonstrable
ground has been made out warranting interference with the
order of the Tribunal in exercise of our writ jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
