An inquiry officer or 'specially empowered authority' holds the legal competence to frame articles of charge under the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965, provided specific authorization from the Disciplinary Authority exists.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1233/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-C BY HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGLAURU CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT DATED 01.03.2017 IN NO.O.E.152 Po.si.A.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A11 TO THE APPLICATION PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.34/2015-16 O.Bi.Sam.11/2015-16 AS PER ANNEXURE-A9 TO THE APPLICATION PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONFIRMING THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 29.01.2015 IN No.Sibbandi (1) E.Vi.17/2013-14 O.Bi.31/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A7 TO THE APPLICATION PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO HIS ORIGINAL POST WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 11.03.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning order dated 07.12.2020 in Application No.1223/2018 (Annexure-C) passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) confirming the order of compulsory retirement dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure-A11) by modifying the order of dismissal dated 29.01.2015 (Annexure-A7), which was confirmed by appellate order dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure-A9).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Civil Police Constable under third respondent and a charge memo dated 05.03.2011 (Annexure-A2) was issued to the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘Rules, 1965’). In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner was that, a criminal case in Crime No. 269/2011 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner along with others alleging that by playing fraud against complainant Smt.Puttamma, the petitioner exhibited misconduct and prima-facie it is found that he was involved in a criminal case. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo and not being satisfied with the reply, the Specially Empowered Authority proceeded with the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer and Specially Empowered Authority by report dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure-A3) held that the charges against the petitioner is proved. The petitioner was issued with second show cause dated 17.11.2014 enclosing enquiry report and the petitioner submitted his reply dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure-A6) to the second show cause notice. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority – the third respondent by order dated 29.01.2015 (Annexure-A7) imposed punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal, filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority by order dated 04.06.2015 rejected the appeal, confirming the order of dismissal. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority, the petitioner submitted revision petition to the State Government. The State Government by order dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure-A11) modified the order of punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. Questioning the order of compulsory retirement, seeking exoneration from the charges, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the afore-stated Application. The Tribunal vide impugned Order dated 07.12.2020, dismissed the Application filed by the Petitio