Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28246

WRIT PETITION NO. 26935 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06/09/202 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3832/2020 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N BY WHICH THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER WAS DISMISSED AND THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: O.K. Ananthakrishna, Naik V.S
For the Respondents: K. Shashikiran Shetty, I. Tharanath Poojary, A.S. Harisham

A disciplinary authority violates the principles of natural justice by proposing a specific penalty in a second show-cause notice before considering the delinquent official's reply to the enquiry report, especially when a judicial order has explicitly directed the issuance of a notice without such proposed punishment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Departmental Enquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Issuance of second show-cause notice - Requirement to not indicate quantum of penalty - Where a tribunal directs the issuance of a fresh second show-cause notice without indicating the proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority is bound to adhere to such direction. Proposing a specific penalty in the second show-cause notice, before considering the delinquent employee’s response to the enquiry report, amounts to pre-judging the issue and constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. (Paras 14, 16, 17)

(B) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Duty of Disciplinary Authority - An authority acting in a quasi-judicial or administrative capacity must exercise its power with due diligence and application of mind. Failure to comply with clear and unambiguous judicial directions, under the guise of 'bonafide understanding', does not mitigate the procedural illegality caused by the disregard of such orders. (Paras 15, 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
A police official challenged an order imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement following a departmental enquiry. In a previous round of litigation, the tribunal had set aside an earlier penalty order and directed the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh second show-cause notice without indicating the quantum of punishment. The disciplinary authority, in the subsequent proceedings, again issued a second show-cause notice that proposed specific penalties, leading the petitioner to challenge the legitimacy of the disciplinary process once more.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the disciplinary authority failed to comply with the specific mandate of the tribunal. By proposing a penalty in the second show-cause notice, the authority violated the petitioner’s right to represent against the enquiry report without the cloud of a pre-determined outcome. The court found this to be a lapse in the application of mind and a breach of natural justice principles.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority’s second show-cause notice, which indicated a proposed penalty, was in violation of the tribunal’s prior directions and the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Mentioning a proposed penalty in a second show-cause notice prior to receiving and considering the delinquent’s comments on the enquiry report renders the disciplinary process procedurally flawed and violative of natural justice as it demonstrates a pre-determined mind by the authority.

Result: Writ petition allowed; tribunal order and penalty order quashed; matter remanded for fresh proceedings from the stage of the second show-cause notice.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual allegations of misconduct. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner challenges disciplinary penalty due to procedural defect in show-cause notice. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. disciplinary authority filed affidavits expressing apology for procedural oversights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. pre-determining penalty in second show-cause notice violates natural justice. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. quashing of penalty order with directions for fresh de novo proceedings. (Para 19)

ORAL ORDER

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

An unsuccessful Police Constable before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”) is before this Court, questioning the order dated 06.09.2022 in Application No.3832/2020, rejecting his prayer to quash the order of penalty dated 25.04.2019 (Annexure-K) imposing penalty of compulsory retirement in exercise of power under Section 23 (1)(b)(2) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short “1963 Act”) and to treat the unauthorized absence from 19.04.2014 to 28.05.2015 as leave without pay, in terms of Rule 106(A) of KCSRs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

A departmental enquiry under Rule 6 of Karnataka Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the petitioner and Articles of Charge dated 10.06.2014 was issued to the petitioner. Charges against the petitioner reads as follows:

3. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner is that on 24.01.2014 along with another person went to the house of Sri.Vasudev Prabhu and asked him to be ready to give surety to the accused – Lathif who is under Police custody by giving Rs.1,00,000/- cash and RTC in respect of one acre of land along with two Government Servants Sureties. When the said Vasudev Prabhu refused by saying that he has nothing to do with the accused-Lathif, the petitioner is said to have threatened the said Vasudev Prabhu that he would be implicated in the said pending crime.

4. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.07.2014 to the charge and thereafter a detailed enquiry was conducted and reported dated 29.03.2015 was submitted holding the charges proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was issued with second show-cause notice along with enquiry report and in the second show-cause notice, it was stated that, as the charges against the petitioner are proved, penalty of dismissal from service and to treat the period of absence as leave without pay was proposed. The said show-cause notice was the subject matter of application before the Tribunal in Application No.8870/2018. The Tribunal, by its order dated 12.12.2018 placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited v/s Mahesh Dahiya reported in (2017)1 SCC 768 set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to issue fresh second show-cause notice without indicating the quantum of punishment with further observation that the petitioner shall not be reinstated till an appropriate decision is taken by the Disciplinary Authority after issuing fresh second show-cause notice. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, a fresh second show-cause notice was issued on 29.03.2019 again indicating the penalty proposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner replied to the second show-cause notice on 08.04.2019 (Annexure-J). The Disciplinary Authority considering the reply submitted to the second show-cause notice, passed order dated 25.04.2019 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement in exercise of power under Section 23(1)(b)(2) of 1963 Act, that was the subject matter of the appeal. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the above application and the Tribunal under impugned order rejected petitioner’s application whereunder the petitioner had questioned the penalty of compulsory retirement. Questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28246

Cases Referred (1)