1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

W.P. NO.43807/2019 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. JAGADISH A

S/O ARUNA

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

WAS WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE

NOW UNDER AN ORDER OF DISCHARGE

RESIDING AT NO.3297, 4TH CROSS

GAYATHRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 021.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF HOME

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

NRUPATUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 001.

3.

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 001.

2

4.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

CITY ARMED RESERVE POLICE

FORCE (CENTRAL WING)

MYSORE ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 018.

5.

THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

CAR (CENTRAL ), MYSORE ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 018.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2019 PASSED BY

THE

HON'BLE

KARNATAKA

STATE

ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.617/2017

(ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID

APPLICATION NO.617/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER

BEFORE

THE

HON'BLE

KARNATAKA

STATE

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE AS PRAYED

FOR (ANNEXURE-B).

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J,

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'tribunal')

in Application No.617/2017 is under challenge in this

writ petition.

3

2.

Petitioner was provisionally selected to the

post of Armed Police Constable in the City Armed

Reserve Police and appointed to the said post on

19.10.2002 and was called upon to report to duty on

06.11.2002. Petitioner was on probation for a period of

2 1/2 years. On account of continuous unauthorized

absence from duty for the period 08.11.2011 to

28.05.2012

(203

days)

and

from

15.08.2012

to

27.11.2012 (103 days) in all, 306 days, disciplinary

proceedings was initiated. The Assistant Commissioner,

CAR (South), Bengaluru was appointed as enquiry officer

and after issuance of notice to the Delinquent Official

(hereinafter referred to as 'DO' for brevity), enquiry

proceedings

was

commenced

and

concluded

by

extending opportunity to the DO. Enquiry officer

submitted his report on 10.03.2013 holding that charges

made against petitioner as proved and fifth respondent

by order dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure-A6) discharged the

petitioner from service under Rule 6 of the Karnataka

Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short '1977

Rules'). Challenging the same, Application came to be

4

filed before the tribunal contending interalia that

impugned order was violative of principles of natural

justice; proper enquiry was not conducted; no justifiable

reason had been assigned for keeping the petitioner on

probation continuously for long number of years;

petitioner

had applied

for

leave which

was

not

considered by the tribunal and as such, application has

to be allowed. Respondent-State defended its action.

Tribunal on appreciation of rival contentions, has arrived

at a conclusion that though applicant was on probation

for more than 11 years, his conduct of remaining absent

unauthorisedly without applying for leave or same being

sanctioned was unbecoming of a police constable.

Hence, application came to be rejected. Challenging the

same, present writ petition is filed.

3.

We have heard Sri Satish, learned Advocate

appearing for petitioner and Sri B Rajendra Prasad,

learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

Perused the records.

5

4.

It is the conte