Karnataka High Court
Kum Jyothishwari S vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12460
WP No. 839 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 839 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KUM JYOTHISHWARI S
D/O SRI SANNA OBALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJ D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Digitally signed by M S BUILDING, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DIRECTOR
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHVESHVARAYYA TOWER
9TH FLOOR PHODIUM BLOCK
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12460
WP No. 839 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 06.11.2021 BEARING No.27378/DMA/97/EQBL/2018-
19/4815 PASSED BY THE R2, OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED
14.06.2022 , BEARING TO 27378/DMA/97/EQBL/2018-19/1694
PASSED BY THE R2 AND ORDER DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY
THE R1 IN FILE No. UDD 25 BMS 2022 VIDE ANNEXURES A , B
AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
1. In this petition petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the Order dated 06.11.2021 bearing No. 27378/DMA/97/EQBL/2018-2019/4815 passed by the 2nd Respondent; office Memorandum dated 14.06.2022, bearing No. 27378/DMA/97/EQBL/ 2018-2019/1694 passed by the 2nd respondent and Order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the 1st Respondent in File No. UDD 25 BMS 2022 vide Annexures A, B and C respectively.-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR b. Issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to treat the period spent on suspension as period spent on duty as provided under Rule 100(1B) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:
The petitioner having been transferred as an Environmental Engineer to the Town Municipal Council Kunigal, second respondent passed an order dated 15.05.2019 suspending the petitioner on various grounds.
Subsequently, petitioner having submitted a reply dated 27.05.2019, second respondent passed an order dated 24.06.2019 revoking the suspension order pending enquiry against the petitioner. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 28.06.2021 calling upon and requesting the second respondent to drop the proposed disciplinary enquiry sought to be initiated against her to which second -4- NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.08.2021 to which also the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation and requested second respondent to drop the disciplinary enquiry initiated against her. By the impugned order at Annexure A dated 06.11.2021, second respondent
- Disciplinary Authority accepted the explanation submitted by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that there was no dereliction of duty committed by the petitioner nor the charges were proved against her despite which the petitioner was imposed with a minor penalty of censure as a result of which, the request of the petitioner to treat the period of suspension as period spent on duty in terms of Rule 100(1B) of KCSRs was rejected by second respondent by passing the impugned order at Annexure B dated 14.06.2022, aggrieved by which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide Appellate order dated at Annexure C dated 29.10.2022. It is also a matter of record and an undisputed fact that subsequent request made by the petitioner to treat the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR period of suspension as period spent on duty was once again rejected by the second respondent vide Annexure M dated 13.09.2022 reiterating its earlier stance. Aggrieved by the impugned orders at Annexures A, B and C, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the claim of the petitioner and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the impugned order at Annexure A dated 06.11.2021 which reads as under:
Government of Karnataka Office of the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, 9th Floor, Vishweshwaraiah Tower, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru - 560001.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR Proceedings of Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration Sub: Negligence of duty by Kum. Jyothishwari, Former Environmental Engineer - reg.
Ref: 1. Letter No. Pou.Sa.523/209 dated 28.02.2019 of Hon'ble Minister for Municipal Administration.
2. Letter No. DUDC:Kuni:CR:533:2018-19 dated 19.03.2019 of Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District.
3. Even No. of the order of the proceedings of the Directorate dated 15.05.2019.
4. Even No. of the order of the proceedings of the Directorate dated 24.06.2019.
5. Articles of Charges alongwith show-cause notice issued from this Directorate on 13.08.2021 as per K.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1957.
6. Explanation dated 31.08.2021 of Kum. Jyothishwari, Environmental Engineer, Chikkanayakanahalli Municipality.
Preamble:
With reference to the letter of the Hon'ble Minister for Municipal Administration referred at (1) above regarding negligence of duty in maintenance of cleanliness of the town by Kum. Jyothishwari, Environmental Engineer, Town Municipality, Kunigal, and as per the report at ref. (2) above of Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, pending enquiry, she -7- NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR was kept under suspension as per ref. (3) and her lean was transferred to Bangarpet Town Municipality in the vacant post of Environmental Engineer. Further, vide ref (4) above, she has been ordered to reinstate in the vacant post of Chikkanayakanahalli Town Municipality. Allegation:
Kum. Jyothiswari, Environmental Engineer, Town Municipality, Kunigal, and presently working in town Municipality, Chikkanayakanahalli, has failed to perform her duties, for which the charges levelled against her was that she was not attending the ward meetings and not obtaining the attendance of Pourakarmikas and Supervisors every day during mornings, showing negligence in inviting tenders for providing life safety kits and tiffin to Pourakarmikas, Loaders, dereliction in deployment of staff and transport vehicle for disposal of solid waste, negligence in implementing Rule 2011 with regard to managing of plastic waste.
As per the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur vide ref. (2) above with regard to the above said charges, Articles of Charges alongwith Show-Cause Notice has been issued vide ref (5) from this Directorate as per K.C.S. (CCA) Rule, 1957.
On examination of the written explanation submitted by the said Officer vide Ref (6) above, she has stated that during her service she has done her duty sincerely and at any point of time she has never behaved which is unbecoming of a Government -8- NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR employee and she has carried out her duties in her working area skillfully as per the protocol. She has requested to consider all the above points.
On examination of the explanation by the said employee to the said Notice at ref (6), with regard to attending the ward meetings, not obtaining the attendance of Pourakarmikas and Supervisors every day during mornings, not inviting tenders for providing life safety kits and tiffin to Pourakarmikas, Loaders, negligence in deployment of staff and transport vehicle for disposal of solid waste, negligence in implementing Rule 2011 with regard to managing of plastic waste, the said employee has failed to perform the responsibility as per rules and that there was no dereliction of duty. Further, Kum. Jyothishwari, Environmental Engineer, Town Municipality, Kunigal, presently working in Town Municipality Chikkanayakana Halli, has stated that in future she will carry out her duties carefully. Considering her explanation, it is hereby ordered as under:
Order No. 27378/DMA/97/EQBL/2018-19/4815 dated 06.10/11.2021 As explained in the preamble, Kum. Jyothishwari, Former Environmental Engineer, Town Municipality, Kunigal and presently working as Environmental Engineer, Town Municipality, Chikkanayakanahalli, while she was working in Kunigal Town Municipality, she has shown negligence in deployment of staff and -9- NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR solid waste transport vehicle and shown negligence in implementing plastic waste management as per Rule 2011. As per the powers conferred under Karnataka Civil Services (Transfer, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, Rule 9(2)(C) on M.S. Archana, I.A.S., Disciplinary Authority and Director, Municipal Administration, Kum. Jyothishwari has been warned to carry out her duties with responsibility and to be careful in her duties without dereliction in her work in future. The case is closed.
Sd/-
Director, Municipal Administration, Bengaluru.
6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid impugned order will indicate that second respondent has not recorded any finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against her. Similarly second respondent has not come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed dereliction of duty so as to impose any penalty, much less minor penalty of censure against the petitioner. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR second respondent has come to the categorical conclusion that the petitioner had not committed any dereliction of duty. Under these circumstances, having not recorded any finding that the petitioner was guilty of dereliction of duty or that the charges against her were proved, second respondent clearly fell in error in imposing the minor penalty of censure against the petitioner, especially without conducting any enquiry against the petitioner, which is not only violative of principles of natural justice, but also contrary to law, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure A deserves to be quashed.
7. Insofar as the impugned order at Annexure B passed by second respondent declining/refusing to treat the period of suspension i.e., from 15.05.2019 to 24.06.2019, of the petitioner as period spent on duty, in terms of Rule 100(1B) of the KCSRs, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure C dated 29.10.2022 is concerned, a perusal of the said orders
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR would indicate that the same were passed as a consequence of the impugned order at Annexure A whereby the petitioner was imposed with a minor penalty of censure. It follows there from that having regard to the findings recorded by me herein before that the impugned order at Annexure A imposing the minor penalty of censure against the petitioner deserves to be set aside, the consequential orders passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the Appellate Authority declining/refusing to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as period spent on duty also deserves to be set aside and the second respondent is to be directed to pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 100(1B) of KCSRs within a stipulated time frame.
8. Insofar as reliance placed on Annexure M dated 13.09.2022 by the learned AGA in order to contend that there were repeated requests is concerned, the subsequent endorsement refusing to treat the period of suspension as period spent on duty was also assailed by
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12460 WP No. 839 of 2023 HC-KAR the petitioner in the appeal which was dismissed and since the same has been set aside by me as stated herein before, the said contention cannot be accepted.
9. In the result petition is hereby allowed. Annexures A, B and C dated 06.11.2021, 14.06.2022 and 29.10.2022 respectively are hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 15.05.2019 to 24.06.2019 as period spent on duty in terms of Section Rule 100(1B) of the KCSRs and grant all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 ct.sm