Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANU SIVARAMAN AND G BASAVARAJA
SRI. L V SHADAKSHARI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO.563 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 22924 OF 2003 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.31028 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
IN RP NO.563 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
SRI. L V SHADAKSHARI S/O LATE VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, HESARGHATTA, BANGALORE - 560 089.
Digitally signed by RESIDING AT NO. 46, 3RD STAGE, LAKSHMINARAYAN N B BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK A MYSORE - 570 030.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M. K., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS) REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to ensuring due process was followed, not to reassess the proportionality of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
Promotion in public service requires availability of vacancies and cannot be guaranteed; the Tribunal is limited to recommending consideration, not issuing binding directives.
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, emphasizing limited judicial review and the necessity of maintaining integrity in public service.
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
Listen Article