Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, T.M.NADAF, JJ.
The State Of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
Sri Anil Kumar, S/o. Shivasharnappa Bajantri - Respondent
Writ Petition No.202256 of 2025 (S-KAT)
Decided on : 12-09-2025
For the Appellant : SRI Y.H.VIJAYKUMAR-AGA A/W. SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP
For the Respondent: SRI R.J.BHUSARE, ADV.
Disciplinary action requires clear evidence of misconduct; mere adherence to guidelines regarding compensation does not constitute dereliction of duty.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Act, 2020 - Section 12 - Writ Petition against Tribunal’s order - The Tribunal set aside the disciplinary action against the private respondent for lack of evidence of dereliction of duty, asserting compliance with the Government Circular regarding crop loss compensation - The court agreed with the Tribunal that punishment was unwarranted and the private respondent acted within the guidelines - The private respondent reported crop loss below the threshold for compensation, creating the basis of the dispute. (Paras 4, 9, 21, 23)
(B) Disciplinary Procedure - The necessity of clear evidence for any charges against an employee was emphasized, ruling that conclusions reached must be substantiated by facts - The Tribunal highlighted the absence of any definitive proof of negligence when following government directives regarding crop assessment. (Paras 2, 12, 24)
Facts of the case:
The private respondent, while serving as a Village Accountant, faced disciplinary action based on an allegation of wrongfully denying compensation to a farmer for crop loss, which subsequent investigations substantiated as below the entitled threshold per government guidelines.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal’s decision, supported by factual finding, was maintained, ruling that the private respondent's actions were justified.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in its findings regarding the disciplinary proceedings against the private respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's view that without substantiating evidence of dereliction of duty, disciplinary action imposed upon the private respondent was improper and arbitrary.
Result: Writ petition dismissed; Tribunal's order confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and setting (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of complaint and investigation outcomes (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. defense claims and arguments presented (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. tribunal findings and reasoning (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. court’s validation of tribunal’s findings (Para 21 , 23) |
| 6. court ruling and order (Para 24) |
ORDER :
T.M.NADAF, J.
Though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final disposal.
2. This writ petition is filed by the State calling in question the order dated 05.06.2024 in Application No.20731/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the application filed by applicant/respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred as ‘private respondent’) comes to be allowed setting aside the impugned order bearing No.RD/20/ADE/2017 dated 09.08.2023 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A12 insofar as private respondent is concerned and further directing the Government to settle all the consequential monetary benefits for which the private respondent is entitled in law granting three months time to comply with the order.
3. Brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:
While the applicant working as Village Accountant at Masarkal village, he was given additional charge as Revenue Inspector, Devadurga taluk in the year 2014. As the matter stood thus, on the complaint of one Hanumangowda, the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Raichur had addressed a letter to the Tahasildar, Devadurga on 24.03.2016 and sought for information regarding the complaint. As per the complainant, he has made an application for release of compensation for crop loss due to heavy rains which the said area had witnessed during the month of August, 2014. The private respondent after investigation found that the loss of crop was to the extent of 46% and with 50% as per the guidelines issued by the Government. Accordingly, he has forwarded the report to the concerned Tashildar that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation for crop loan. This is according to the complainant, amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the private respondent which made him to file a complaint before the Police, Karnataka Lokayukta.
4. On the basis of letter received by, the Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur, the Tahasildar formed a Committee for the purpose of inspection, in order to ascertain the loss caused to the crop in respect of the entire village. The Committee filed its report on 30.09.2014 to the Tahasildar, wherein the crop loss suffered as many as by 158 farmers has been enclosed stating the extent of loss of crops. The complainant namely, Hanumangowda was shown at Sl.No.151 to the said report. On the basis of the report dated 06.01.2015 submitted by the Committee, the Tahasildar, Devadurga on 09.01.2015 issued an endorsement to the complainant-Hanumangowda and other farmers stating that on the basis of the report, the loss of crop suffered was less than 50% and in terms of Government Circular bearing No.32-3/2013-NDM-1 dated 28.11.2013 farmers who have suffered any crop loss which is below 50%
are not entitled for the compensation. As such, issued endorsement stating that the farmers including the complainant are not entitled for compensation. The concerned Tahasildar, Devadurga forwarded the said report to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur.
5. Subsequent to the receipt of report from the Tahasildar, Devadurga, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur forwarded the same to the Registrar-04, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru with a covering letter dated 06.04.2016 requesting to close the complaint. Despite the said report vide letter supra by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur, the petitioner herein without considering the documents entrusted the matter to Karnataka Lokayukta to hold enquiry against the T
