1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

WRIT PETITION NO.8945/2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN

SRI. RUDRAGOUDA S. SANNAGOUDAR

ALIAS R.S. SANNAGOUDAR

S/O LATE SIDDABASAPPAGOUDA SANNAGOUDAR

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

PLANNING AND ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT CIRCLE

PWD ANNEXE BUILDING

K.R. CIRCLE

BANGALORE 3 560 001.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI M.S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK

PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

VIKASA SOUDHA

BANGALORE 3 560 001.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B. RAJENDRAPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING A) CALL FOR RECORDS

FROM

THE

HON9BLE

KARNATAKA

STATE

ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER

2

DATED:02.12.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.6613/2019 AND

ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER OF THIS

DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present

writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2020

passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,

Bangalore, in Application No.6613/2019.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner has

filed the aforesaid application before the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 8Tribunal9

for short) claiming promotion to the post of Executive

Engineer under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules

(hereinafter referred to as 8Rules9 for short) and to promote

him to the said post from the date on which his juniors were

promoted, in spite of the fact that a departmental enquiry

was pending against him. It has been stated that the

petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on

29.10.1987 and subsequently promoted as an Assistant

Executive Engineer during the year 2012. A criminal case

was registered against him i.e. Crime No.19/2015 for the

3

offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been

further stated that a departmental enquiry against the

petitioner has been entrusted to Lokayukta under Rule 14A of

Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1957, by order dated 09.05.2017 and a charge sheet

was also issued on 07.10.2017. The petitioner has preferred

an application before the Tribunal taking shelter of the

judgment delivered in case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND

OTHERS VS. CHAMAN LAL GOYAL reported in 1995 (2)

SCC 570. It was also stated that a promotion order was

issued provisionally in respect of the petitioner therein in

spite of pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

3. The Tribunal taking into account the judgment

referred by the learned Counsel, in paragraphs 4 and 5, has

held as under:

< 4.

Admittedly, a criminal case has been

registered

against

the

applicant

in

Spl.C.C.No.445/2016

in

the

Court

of

78th

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and

Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act,

Bangalore City and the applicant has been

charge-sheeted. In the case of STATE OF

4

PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. CHAMAN LAL

GOYAL reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570, it is

held that in the absence of issuance of charge

sheet or charge memo as on the date of

consideration of DPC, the DPC ought not to have

adopted sealed cover procedure. Further, the

question that fell for consideration in CHAMAN LAL

GOYAL9s case was non-consideration of his case

for promotion on account of undue delay of about

8 years in concluding departmental enquiry. But

in the case on hand, there is no such delay in

initiation of enquiry as the alleged incident took

place on 26.3.2015 and charge-sheet has been

filed on 22.9.2016 and trial is going