Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shri Satish Naik S/O Keshav on 22 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.104751 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103187 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.104751 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PLANNING, PROGRAMMING CO-ORDINATION AND
STATISTICS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
VINAYAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
BV
2. THE DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.07.24 13:11:44
+0530
DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMIC & STATISTICS,
7TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DISTRICT STATISTICAL OFFICER
NO.235, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA
(MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA)
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. SATISH NAIK S/O KESHAV
AGE. 43 YEARS, WORKING AS TALUKA
PLANNING OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
R/AT C/O LAXMAN KATTIMANI,
TIPPU NAGAR, BADAMI-587201.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
BADAMI, BAGALKOT-587201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10272
OF 2021 (ANNEXURE.C TO THE WRIT PETITION) & ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.103187 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, CO-ORDINATE
AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMIC AND STATISTICS,
7TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE DISTRICT STATISTICAL OFFICER,
NO.235, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA,
(MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA),
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BADAMI,
DISTRICT. BAGALKOT-587201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI SATISH NAIK S/O KESHAV
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. NOW NILL,
WORKED AS TALUKA PLANNING OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BADAMI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT, R/AT. NEAR DURGA VIHAR,
STATION ROAD, L T BAGALKOT-587686.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. UPADHYE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION 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 SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
12.10.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, IN APPLICATION NO.10235/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Both these writ petitions are filed by the State of Karnataka, Department of Planning, Programming Co- ordination and Statistics Department along with the Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics and the District Statistical Officer and the respondent is Sri.Satish Naik in both the matters. Therefore, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. At the threshold, learned Government Advocate submits that W.P.No.104751/2022 does not survive for consideration since the writ petition was filed assailing an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi in Application No.10272/2021 where the respondent, pending disciplinary proceedings was demoted. The Tribunal allowed the application while setting aside the said order at Annexure-A11 dated 20.02.2021. However, subsequently, the departmental enquiry was held and punishment was imposed on the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent. Therefore, W.P.No.104751/2022 is required to be disposed of as having become infructuous.
3. It is not in dispute that the respondent was initially appointed as Enumerator on 28.07.2003 and subsequently, he was promoted as Statistical Inspector in the year 2006 and further promoted as Assistant Statistical Officer in the year 2010. However, when the respondent was further promoted as Assistant Director of Statistics by order dated 22.07.2014, certain complaints were received against the respondent and few other persons and the department initiated disciplinary proceedings. After receiving information that the respondent had produced a fake degree certificate, which was allegedly not issued by the Eastern Institute of Integrated Learning in Management, which was affiliated to the University of Sikkim, in the departmental enquiry, the information was placed before the Inquiry Officer in the form of Ex.14 dated 24.11.2020 said to have been issued by the Registrar (IC), EIILMU, Sikkim/Deputy -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Government of Sikkim stating that the marks card copy of Sri.Satish K. Naik bearing No.EIILMU/09/S27184 and two other persons obtained from EIILM University of Sikkim are "not valid/genuine". The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charge against the respondent was proved and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to issue a second show-cause notice to the respondent and passed an order on 31.01.2023 imposing punishment of dismissal from the service.
4. The respondent preferred Application No.10235/2023 before the Tribunal at Belagavi and on 12.10.2023, the Tribunal passed the impugned order setting aside the order of punishment dated 31.01.2023 while remitting the matter back to the Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics to pass a modified order within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, reverting back the applicant to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer, with effect from 22.07.2014 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR by cancelling his promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Statistics (Group-B). It is also directed that, all benefits enjoyed by the applicant related to pay and allowances also may be reviewed as per law.
5. Learned Government Advocate vehemently contended that even in the reply given to the second show-cause notice, the respondent did not deny the fact that the certificate/marks card that he produced were issued by the University of Sikkim. The Registrar of the University has issued a communication which was marked as Ex.14 before the Inquiry Officer which clearly stated that, on verification, the marks card submitted by three officers were "not valid/genuine". It is also a fact that the respondent has not challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and he has accepted the finding of the Tribunal that insofar as charge of production of fake certificate and marks card were proved against the respondent herein. However, the learned Government Advocate submits that it is a settled position of law that -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR courts normally do not modify the punishment and if it is found that the punishment is exorbitant and not commensurate with the charges imposed against the delinquent officer, then the courts should remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment. In this regard, learned Government Advocate places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS VS MECKEN SINGH N.MARAK reported in (2008) 7 SCC 580, where it was held that, while considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the court should also take into consideration, the mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by him and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process. If the charged employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with with iron hands. In the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS RAJENDRA D.HARMALKAR reported (2022) 17 SCC 361, in paragraph 21, it was held as follows:
"In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372, in paragraph 19, it was observed and held as under:
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co- delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the codelinquent are equally placed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the two cases. If the codelinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."
6. However, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent that, having regard to there being no complaint regarding the documents given by the respondent during his initial appointment as Enumerator on the basis of the educational qualifications of SSLC, the promotion given to the respondent as Assistant Statistical Officer in the year 2010 was also on the basis of the same educational qualification. The invalid certificate of B.A. (Economics) and marks card was submitted by the respondent for securing promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Statistics (Group-B). Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion that since it is not disputed that appointment and promotion of the respondent to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer was based on genuine documents, he cannot be removed from the service. Learned Government Advocate submits that having regard
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR to the position of law, as stated in the above said judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the decision as to whether the respondent should only be demoted and not removed from the service should have been left to the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal could not have issued such positive direction.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in the reply given by the respondent along with the writ petition at Annexure-A12, the respondent has clearly stated that during the years 2009-11, he got enrolled for the degree course at Inamdar Regional Educational and Charitable Trust (R), Gulbarga and after having completed the course, the degree certificate as well as marks card were furnished by the said institution. However, the petitioner authority have only sought for verification of the certificate and the marks card at the hands of the Government of Sikkim. It is also not clear as to whether such information would be available with the government or whether the information
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR was secured from the University of Sikkim. At any rate, the allegation that the respondent has produced fake certificate/marks card cannot be accepted and it cannot be declared that respondent has produced fraudulent documents, since, it was always contended by the respondent that the institution gave him the certificate and the marks card. However, if the institution has played fraud by enrolling the respondent although it was not affiliated or not permitted to offer said subjects, since the said subjects were not permitted by the University, then it cannot be alleged that the respondent has produced a fake certificate. It is pointed out to Ex.14, which is the communication dated 24.11.2020 made by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Government of Sikkim, where it only says that the marks card copy produced by the respondent is "not valid/genuine". It is not stated in the said communication that the marks card were got verified at the hands of the University of Sikkim. It is not stated clearly as to whether the University had not issued
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR marks card at all. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Disciplinary Authority.
8. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. During the course of the arguments, our attention is drawn at two judgments. One of the judgment is of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in the case of MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ DAR VS UNION TERRITORY OF J&K & OTHERS IN W.P.(C)NO.3308/2023 CM NO.7940/2023 dated 18.04.2025, where it was held that the petitioner had only submitted the certificate issued by un-recognized institution. Had the petitioner submitted any fake or forged certificate, this court would not have shown any indulgence but in view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted certificate by un-recognized institution and at the most while conducting scrutiny of the documents submitted by the candidates, the respondent
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR could have excluded the said certificate while determining the merit of the petitioner. In another judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the case of DHARMDAS BHALEKAR VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS IN W.P.NO.39/2024 dated 25.10.2024, it is held that, acceptance of an unacceptable certificate is one aspect and a certificate obtained which is forged is another aspect. It is settled in law that fraud vitiates everything but there is no allegation against the petitioner that the certificate that he has relied upon while taking appointment is a forged certificate. There is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner was not having 15% temporary disability as contained in the said certificate. If the allegation had been that the petitioner was not having even 15% temporary disability then it would have been a case where the certificate was obtained by fraud. If the complaint had been that the certificate was actually never issued then it would have been a case of forgery. None of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR these allegations are contained in the complaint against the petitioners.
10. Having regard to the undisputed facts as obtained, in the present case, we find that the respondent has clearly stated in the reply to the charge memo that he had enrolled for B.A. degree course at Inamdar Regional Educational and Charitable Trust (R), Gulbarga. If it is the case that institution admits that it has issued the certificate and the marks card to the respondent, then the allegation of fraud or production of fake certificate will not stick on the respondent. Under those circumstances, it would be appropriate that the Disciplinary Authority has to re-look into the matter. If necessary, additional enquiry can be held while enabling the Disciplinary Authority to call for such information from the Inamdar Regional Educational and Charitable Trust (R), Gulbarga where the respondent had enrolled. The information is also required to be called for from the University and not from the Government of Sikkim. If after such enquiry, it is found
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR that the certificate and the marks card were issued by the institution where the respondent has studied, then the allegation of fraud or production of fake certificate cannot held against the respondent. On the other hand, if the institution denied having issued such certificate and marks card to the respondent, then the allegation of fraud or production of fake certificate can be held against the respondent.
11. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal requires modification as hereunder.
i) W.P.No.103187/2024 is partly allowed.
ii) While remitting the matter back to petitioner No.2-the Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, it is hereby directed that the Disciplinary Authority may hold additional enquiry calling for information from the institution where the respondent studied and the University of Sikkim. Any information obtained from the institution and the University
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB WP No.104751 of 2022 C/W WP No.103187 of 2024 HC-KAR shall firstly be brought to the notice of the respondent and thereafter, additional enquiry including recording of evidence and cross- examination shall be permitted.
iii) The Inquiry Officer shall thereafter file additional report. All further procedure as contemplated in law shall be followed and petitioner No.2 is permitted to take a decision based on the additional report that would be submitted by the Inquiry Officer.
iv) The entire process of holding additional enquiry and the decision to be taken by petitioner No.2/Disciplinary Authority shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
v) Needless to observe that, if it is found that the respondent has not furnished any forged or fake certificate, then appropriate orders shall be passed by the Disciplinary Authority including a decision regarding pay and allowances of the respondent during the period where he was kept out of service.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9045-DB
WP No.104751 of 2022
C/W WP No.103187 of 2024
HC-KAR
vi) In view of the submission made by the learned
Government Advocate, W.P.No.104751/2022
stands disposed of as having become
infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, all pending I.A's, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE MBS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2