IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION No. 46781 OF 2016 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR

OF ENQUIRY-4,

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

M.S.BUILDING,

K.R.CIRCLE,

BENGALURU-560 001.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed

by VALLI AND:

MARIMUTHU

Location: H IGH

COURT OF 1. SRI NANJUNDA SHETTY,

KARNATAKA

S/O LATE KARININGA SHETTY,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,

VARUNA CIRCLE,

VARUNA HOBLI,

MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570010.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

M.S.BUILDING,

K.R.CIRLCE, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY MS. JAHNAVI MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATE TRIBUNAL, IN APPLICATION No.8096/2015 DATED 29.06.2016 IN SO FAR AS REDUCING THE PENALTY TO THAT OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT IN PLACE OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE AS ORDERED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri. Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Jahnavi Manjunath, learned counsel for Sri. Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri. K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

2. This writ petition is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta calling in question the order dated 29.06.2016 passed in Application No.8096/2015 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'). An enquiry was conducted against respondent No.1 for the alleged misconduct, and the enquiry report was submitted on 05.02.2015. Upon consideration of the enquiry report, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed.

3. Aggrieved by the enquiry report and the order of penalty, respondent No.1 preferred an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, upon considering the enquiry report and the evidence on record, held that the findings recorded in the enquiry report were justified. However, the Tribunal modified the penalty from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The said order is assailed by the petitioner.

4. Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal, having concurred with the findings recorded in the enquiry report, committed a grave error in modifying the penalty imposed. Learned counsel further contends that the modification of the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement is of little consequence and it is as if no penalty. It is further submitted that, having regard to the age of respondent No.1 at the time when the penalty was modified, such modification does not amount to a penalty as contemplated under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1957.

5. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal be set aside and the punishment of removal from service be restored.

6. Ms. Jahnavi Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the order impugned.

7. Sri. K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondent No.2.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The Tribunal, upon examination of the enquiry report, concurred with the findings recorded therein and categorically held that no ground was made out to interfere with the conclusions reached by the Enquir