Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.G.Pandit, K.V.ARAVIND
Mahesh B N – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
S.G.PANDIT, J.
The above writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 05.10.2020 in Application Nos.3058/2020, 3059/2020 and 3060/2020 (Annexure-D) passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), by which, the petitioners’ challenge to articles of charge dated 03.08.2020 is rejected.
2. The petitioners are working as Surveyors in the Second respondent – Survey, Settlement & Land Records Department. Alleging certain misconduct, articles of charge dated 03.08.2020 (Annexure-A4) with identical charges were issued to the petitioners. Questioning the said articles of charge dated 03.08.2020 issued to the petitioners, individually approached the Tribunal in the above stated Applications urging several grounds including the ground of incompetence of the second respondent as on the date of issuance of articles of charge. The Tribunal under common impugned order dismissed the applications of the petitioners, against which, the present writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for petitioners through video conference and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.
The court confirmed that a person in concurrent charge possesses the full authority to exercise statutory powers, and challenges to articles of charge based on vagueness or delay must consider the se....
Officials are not liable for actions taken in compliance with court orders, and penalizing them based on compliance is an abuse of process.
The issuance of a Charge Memo by an unauthorized authority after undue delay is unsustainable, as negligible errors do not constitute misconduct.
A charge-sheet does not provide cause of action for a writ unless it is wholly without jurisdiction or illegal; principles of natural justice do not apply at this stage.
Judicial officers can face disciplinary action for misconduct, but not for mere errors in judgment, emphasizing the need for judicial independence.
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings post-retirement can prejudice the defense, warranting quashing of charge memos under Rule 214 of KCSRs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
