Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2990
2025 KHC-D 14615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S. G. PANDIT, GEETHA K.B., JJ.
Smt. Foujiya Tarannum, W/o Mohammed Usman - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Revenue - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.106832 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Sri. S.B. Hebballi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, Prl. Gov. Advocate
Procedural deficiencies in disciplinary inquiries violate natural justice principles, leading to invalidity of dismissal and entitling affected parties to reconsideration of benefits.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Challenge to dismissal order - The Tribunal set aside the order regarding retrial benefits for the deceased government employee, directing the respondents to reconsider under relevant rules. Court held that if the due process outlined in Rule 11 was not followed during proceedings, the inquiry is vitiated and findings are impermissible (Paras 10, 17, 19).
(B) Natural Justice - Failure to produce evidence and examine witnesses during the inquiry leads to denial of fair procedure, invalidating dismissal order which may affect retrial benefits. (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the administrative tribunal's decision regarding retrial benefits for her deceased husband who was dismissed following an allegedly flawed inquiry process (Paras 3-4).
Findings of Court:
The inquiry’s procedural shortcomings necessitated reconsideration of retrial benefits for the petitioner (Paras 11, 20).
Issues: Whether the inquiry adhered to CCA Rules and the adequacy of evidence in the dismissal of the petitioner's husband (Paras 10, 11).
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the necessity for adhering strictly to procedural rules in disciplinary inquiries, ruling that the lack of witness examination invalidated the dismissal (Paras 12-13).
Result: Writ petition allowed in part; Tribunal's order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to dismissal order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on procedural compliance in enquiry. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's evaluation of enquiry procedure and implications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. final decision on benefits entitlements. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
S. G. PANDIT, J.
The petitioner, wife of one Mohammed Usman, who was working as Village Accountant in the Revenue Department, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 4.7.2024 in Application No.11281/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi, For short, ‘Tribunal’, whereunder the Tribunal passed the following order:
(i) The impugned endorsement order bearing No.KamE 341 BSC 2022 dated 31.07.2023 Annexure-A13 issued by the respondent No.2 is set-aside partly wherein it relates to giving retrial benefits to the applicant for her deceased husband.
(ii) Respondents shall consider the case of the applicant under relevant rules and examine whether any retrial benefits can be provided in terms of Rules discussed above after considering the matter afresh within a reasonable time frame of six months from the date of issue of this order and issue appropriate orders thereafter as per Rules.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, when the husband of the petitioner was working as Village Accountant, charge memo dated 8.2.2010 was issued alleging following two charges:
3. Enquiry Officer, who was appointed to enquire into the allegations against the husband of the petitioner, submitted an enquiry report, which is placed on record as Annexure-A3 holding that the charges against the husband of the petitioner are proved and the petitioner was issued with 2nd show-cause notice dated 3.8.2011 and as the husband of the petitioner failed to submit reply, memo dated 1.6.2012 came to be issued dismissing the husband of the petitioner from service under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, For short ‘CCA Rules’, against which, the husband of the petitioner is said to have filed an appeal. In terms of Annexure-A7, the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority and the Regional Commissioner, Gulbarga, the order of dismissal was stayed and thereafter, by order dated 30.4.2018, the appeal was dismissed and by Official Memorandum dated 4.6.2018, the husband of the petitioner was relieved from the duty.
4. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner is stated to have died on 26.03.2022. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.11281/2023 questioning the order of dismissal as well as the order of appellate authority. The Tribunal under impugned order passed the order as extracted above. Questioning the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel, Sri.S.B.Hebballi for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State authorities. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
6. Learned counsel, Sri.S.B.Hebballi appearing for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry against the husband of the petitioner is vitiated for not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules. Learned counsel would point out that, before the enquiry officer, no witnesses were examined by the disciplinary authority, however without examining any witness and without having produced the documents in accordance with Rule 11 of CCA Rules, the enquiry officer could not have looked into the documents to arrive at a conclusion that the charges are proved against the delinquent official.
7. It is submitted that based on the perfunctory enquiry, order of penalty of dismissal was passed, which was the subject matter of appeal. It is submitted that the appellate authority failed to examine as to whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of CCA Rules was followed or not.
8. Learned counsel, S
