1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO.200927/2021 (S-KAT)

Between:

Sri Mohamed Hameed S/o Khajasab Mulla

Aged about 61 Years, Occ: Former CPC 1100

Residing at Rajanal

Tq. & Dist. Bidar-585 401

... Petitioner

(By Sri Huleppa Heroor, Advocate)

And:

1.

The Superintendent of Police

Bidar District, Bidar-585 401

2.

The Inspector General of Police

North Eastern Range

Kalaburagi - 585 101

... Respondents

(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, GA)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of

certiorari by quashing the order passed on 24.07.2018 in

Application No.4115 of 2008 by the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru which is placed at

2

Annexure-A and consequently allow the said application and

etc.

This petition having been heard and reserved for

orders on 17.06.2021, coming on for pronouncement of

orders, this day, M.G.S.Kamal J., made the following:-

ORDER

This writ petition is filed against the order dated

24.07.2018 passed by Karnataka State Administrative

Tribunal at Bangalore (for short 'the KSAT') dismissing

the application filed by the petitioner challenging the

order of dismissal dated 03.01.2007 passed by the first

respondent and the order dated 09.04.2007 passed by

the second respondent, by which the punishment of

dismissal

was

modified

to

that

of

compulsory

retirement.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner

had joined the service as Civil Police Constable on

10.03.1992 and was working as such in Janavada

Police Station, Bidar. That by order dated 02.08.2005,

the

first

respondent

had

directed

initiation

of

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under

3

Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary

Proceedings) Rules, 1965. The Specially Empowered

Authority - Inquiring Authority had issued a charge

memo dated 07.08.2005 in which it was alleged that the

petitioner having the first wife namely, Sofiya Begum,

three daughters and a son had contracted a second

marriage with one Smt. Farzana Begum of Siddi Taleem,

Bidar District by giving false information that first wife

had no male issue. That the contracting of second

marriage

was

without

prior

permission

of

the

department and thus the petitioner had violated the

provisions of Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Services

(Conduct) Rules, 1966 making himself liable for

disciplinary action. The petitioner had submitted his

written statement of defence denying the charges leveled

against him and desired oral enquiry. Disciplinary

authority had examined 11 witnesses and had produced

17 documents. The petitioner participated in the

disciplinary proceedings and defended himself.

4

3.

On

07.11.2006

first

respondent

issued

second show cause notice enclosing a copy of the

enquiry report calling upon to show cause as to why the

enquiry report should not be accepted. The petitioner

had submitted a detailed reply/explanation dated

27.11.2006 to the first respondent pointing out the

purported infirmity in the procedure adopted by the

enquiring authority and also pointing out that the

alleged second marriage had not been established by

the disciplinary authority as required under law and

requested the first respondent not to accept the enquiry

report and to exonerate the petitioner of the charges.

4.

However, the first respondent by order dated

03.01.2007 imposed the penalty of removal from the

services and considered the period of suspension as

such. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

preferred

a

statutory

appeal

before

the

second

respondent challenging the legality and correctness of

the order passed by the first respondent. By order

5

dated

09.04.2007,

the

second

respondent

on

confirmatio