Reserved on : 09.01.2026 Pronounced on : 26.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^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. 5023 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. MS. MANGALAGOURI V BHAT, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O VENKATARAMANA V. BHAT, WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (OOD), DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY BUILDING, I FLOOR, ROOM No.F-232, ASHOKA ROAD, TUMKUR-572101, Digitally R/AT C/O SHIVAKUMAR, signed by WARD No.2, SLN LAYOUT, VINUTHA B S ANTHARASANAHALLI, ARAKERE POST, Location:

High Court of TUMKUR-572106.

Karnataka …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TOURISM, No.49, 2^ND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02/01/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.3755/2022 (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.3755/2022 has preferred this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal').

3. The petitioner, while working as superintendent in the Department of Tourism was promoted as Assistant Director and thereafter, she was placed under suspension on 06.06.2013, followed by charge memo dated 27.09.2013. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge memo. On 05.02.2014, the petitioner's suspension was revoked. The enquiry officer was appointed on 31.01.2015. Total 35 charges were framed out of which, enquiry report was submitted holding 20 charges proved. Second show-cause notice was issued on 06.12.2018 seeking explanation on the finding of the enquiry officer. Considering the reply submitted on 21.12.2018, the disciplinary authority by order dated 29.01.2019 imposed penalty of reduction of time scale in the cadre of Assistant Director to the lowest scale of pay in the cadre of Tourism Officer permanently. The penalty order was subject matter of challenge in Application No.792/2019 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty and directed reconsideration. The review petition filed against the said order came to be allowed and application was restored.

3.1 The Tribunal after restoration by order dated

23.04.2019, set aside the order of penalty and remitted to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration. The disciplinary authority by order dated 12.06.2019 imposed same penalty as was imposed earlier by reducing the time scale. This order dated 12.06.2019 was subject matter of Application No.3530/2019 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty with liberty to consider the reply filed by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on 22.09.2021 imposed penalty of Censure and withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The Application No.3755/2022 challenging the order of penalty came to be dismissed by the Tribunal against which the present petition.

4. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the findings in the enquiry report are without any basis. It is submitted that the penalty imposed on the enquiry report was set aside twice for reconsideration. It is sub