Heard the learned HCGP, learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioners are the State of Karnataka by its

Secretary, Home Department, the Director General and

Inspector General and the Inspector General of Police of

Eastern Range.

The brief facts are that the respondent was

earlier discharging duties as Reserve Sub Inspector at the

District Armed Reserve, Haveri District. That during the

3

period 19.05.2013 to 19.10.2014 and from 31.01.2015 to

26.04.2015, disciplinary enquiry came to be initiated on the

basis

of

complaint

received

from

the

subordinates

complaining of the respondent unnecessarily subjecting

them to undue duress, for the sake of extracting money by

compelling them to work for long hours, using abusive

language marking them as absent when they report late to

duty and submitting adverse reports resulting in senior

officers making their life miserable and in general was

abusing his superior post and behaving in a dictatorial

manner. Pursuant to the enquiry the enquiry officer

submitted a report holding the charges as proved. Pursuant

to which the third respondent imposed a punishment of

withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Upon

appeal the appellate authority modified the punishment to

one of withholding one increment without cumulative effect,

but the review preferred to the third respondent resulted in

rejection of the same. Aggrieved the respondent preferred

the application before the Hon9ble KAT praying for setting

aside the order of the first respondent imposing penalty of

4

withholding two increments with cumulative effect and the

order of the second respondent in appeal and the order of

the third respondent in the review petition dated 6.1.2017,

31.1.2017 and 17.8.2017 respectively. The Tribunal has

perused the records and in particular the deposition of the

various witnesses and in fact has extracted the depositions

in para 6 of the order i.e., deposition of 18 witnesses have

been examined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found

that the disciplinary authority has relied on two documents

i.e., representation of the staff of the DAR and another

representation dated 10.2.2014 of one Mrs. Naikodi. The

Tribunal has also recorded that the first representation is an

anonymous petition received on 27.3.2013 and it is found

that the names and details of the signatories are not

forthcoming. Despite the same being an anonymous

petition, an enquiry was conducted by the then Deputy

Superintendent, DAR, who after enquiry has found the

allegations to be false and in the absence of any address to

communicate no endorsement was issued. It is found that

on the representation of the said Mrs. Naikodi the said

5

complainant has not been examined at all and has further

recorded that the same has been enquired into by the

District Special Branch, DAR and yet again the allegations

were found to be false and the petition was recommended

to be filed. The Tribunal has examined the report of the

enquiry officer i.e., as Annexure 69, and has recorded that

the enquiry officer is satisfied that the applicant was not in

any way responsible for the suicidal death of one Mr.Gollar,

but has proceeded to hold that the delinquent/respondent

herein was guilty of using abusive language against Mrs.

Naikodi. It has also been recorded by the enquiry officer

that the delinquent respondent herein was found enforcing

discipline at more than warranted levels of discipline on the

men under his charge. The Tribunal after appreciating the

articles of charge has found that though charge of the

appellant causing the suicidal death of one Mr.Gollar is

found, it has also observed that such a serious charge

cannot be implied nor it can be couched in general terms.

The Tribunal has further observed that though the enquiry

officer has stated that the use of abusive language is

6

proved, the record do not reveal any material corroborating

the same and has further observed that none of