IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 46889 OF 2019 (S)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA UPALOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)

AND:

Digitally signed by

1. H. B. CHANDRASEKARAIAH NANJUNDACHARI S/O. H. B. BORALINGAIAH, Location: HIG H COURT OF AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, KARNATAKA VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, C.T. KERE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDIG, BENGALURU-560 001.

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.7797/2011 DATED 31.01.2019 AS PER ANNX-C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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)

The Karnataka Lokayukta has approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.01.2019 passed in Application No.7797/2011 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”).

2. The first respondent, while working as Village Accountant in Tumakuru District, was subjected to a joint enquiry. A charge memo was issued to the first respondent along with two other Delinquent Government Officials (DGOs). A joint charge was levelled against all three DGOs. Upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charge was proved against the first respondent herein and not proved against the other DGOs.

2.1 On the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner recommended imposition of penalty by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect and postponement of the first respondent’s promotion by three years. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 05.11.2011, a penalty was imposed withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect and postponing the promotion by three years.

2.2 The said order was assailed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, upon examination of the material on record, including the enquiry report and the nature of the misconduct alleged, held that the penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect was harsh and disproportionate to the charge proved. Accordingly, the Tribunal modified the penalty to withholding three annual increments without cumulative effect.

3. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order of penalty was imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the course of the enquiry. It is contended that, even assuming the Tribunal was of the view that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the charge proved, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to modify the same. According to the learned counsel, the matter ought to have been remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration on the question of imposition of penalty.

4. Sri. K.R. Rajendra learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material available on record, including the writ papers.

6. The charge memo was issued on 24.10.2005.

The article of charge reads as follows:

“That you DGO-1 K.S.Ramakrishnaiah, Village Accountant, DGO-2 Ganganna, Asst. Village Accountant and DGO-3 H.B.Chandrashekaraiah, Incharge Village Accountant of Dabbeghatta Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District while working as such, on account of acquisition of land measuring 0.25 guntas in Sy.No.92 new number 120 for the purpose of Hemavathi Canal, the owner of the land Sri. Sannabyregow