Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.Gnana Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB
WP No. 17499 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 17499 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.GNANA PRAKASH,
S/O LATE BALUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
EXCISE CHECK POST,
SARAHADDINA DODDI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA 562119
E [email protected],
Digitally signed
by VALLI PH.9844199119.
MARIMUTHU ...PETITIONER
Location: (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
2ND FLOOR, TTMC, A BLOCK,
BMTC, K. H. ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB
WP No. 17499 of 2025
HC-KAR
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/03/2023 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
IN APPLICATION No.4776/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No.4776/2021
AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONBLE
TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 10.03.2023 in Application No.4776/2021, whereunder his prayer to direct the respondents to promote him to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Excise by opening the sealed cover with effect from 17.07.2021, the date on which his juniors are promoted with consequential benefits, is rejected. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB WP No. 17499 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. The facts in brief are that a departmental enquiry was initiated by issuing articles of charge dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure-D) that was culminated in imposing a penalty of dismissal dated 03.12.2024. The said order of penalty of dismissal was the subject matter of Application No.5553/2024. The Tribunal by order dated 17.04.2025 set aside the order of penalty of dismissal and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for de novo consideration from the stage of issuance of the observation note to the applicant and further proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. It is also submitted that on the same allegations a criminal case is also pending against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with a prayer to consider his case for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Excise. The Tribunal under the impugned order rejected the petitioner's application holding that it is not in the public interest that a person facing a charge sheet on a charge of corruption is accorded promotion in service. Questioning the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB WP No. 17499 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Heard Sri. K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has taken notice. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
4. Sri. K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings against the petitioner have been pending for last more than ten years and a long delay in concluding the proceedings would entitle the petitioner for consideration of his case for promotion. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner as such, the petitioner would be entitled to promotion from the date his juniors are promoted i.e., from 17.07.2021. The delay in the conclusion of both criminal and departmental proceedings has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Prolonged proceedings have -5- NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB WP No. 17499 of 2025 HC-KAR affected the service condition of the petitioner. Thus, it is prayed for allowing the writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and we are of the opinion that the order impugned herein passed by the Tribunal would not warrant interference.
6. Petitioner was issued with articles of charge on 20.08.2016. In the said enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were proved and it culminated in imposing a penalty of dismissal under order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure-E) before the Tribunal. The said order was the subject matter of Application No.5553/2024. The said application was allowed by order dated 17.04.2025, quashing the order of dismissal dated 03.12.2024, remitting the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for de novo consideration from the stage of issuance of the observation note to the petitioner and to proceed further in accordance with law. Therefore, as on this date, the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. The departmental enquiry as contended by the learned counsel for -6- NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB WP No. 17499 of 2025 HC-KAR the petitioner cannot be considered as pending for very long. In fact, the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner concluded by passing the order of dismissal dated 03.12.2024. At the instance of the petitioner, the enquiry proceeding was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for de novo enquiry. When the enquiry is continued de novo on challenge by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the enquiry is pending consideration for long that too, after its culmination. Moreover, when criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are pending, paragraph No.6 of Official Memorandum No.DPAR 22 SRR 93, dated 14.07.1993 would be attracted which reads as follows:
"The sealed cover procedure contemplated herein above, shall be adopted only after the date of issuance of charge Memo/Charge Sheet, that being the date from which the disciplinary proceedings can be taken to have been initiated."
7. Decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chaman Lal Goyal (supra) at paragraph Nos.11 and 12, it is held as follows:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB WP No. 17499 of 2025 HC-KAR "11. The principles to be borne in mind in this behalf have been set out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] . Though the said case pertained to criminal prosecution, the principles enunciated therein are broadly applicable to a plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well. In paragraph 86 of the judgment, this Court mentioned the propositions emerging from the several decisions considered therein and observed that "ultimately the court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors -- balancing test or balancing process -- and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case". It has also been held that, ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the charges, or the conviction, as the case may be, will be quashed. At the same time, it has been observed that that is not the only course open to the court and that in a given case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing of the proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it has been observed, it is open to the court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstance of the case.
12. Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing enquiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately.
This direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if -8- NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB WP No. 17499 of 2025 HC-KAR any, pending the enquiry shall, however, be subject to review after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the findings in the enquiry. It is also directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded within eight months from today. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that when the criminal proceedings or disciplinary proceedings are delayed, the Court shall balance and in appropriate cases, could direct consideration of cases of delinquent officials for promotions to the next higher cadre. With regard to delay or long pending criminal or departmental proceedings would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be a straight jacket formula to say that in each and every case, there is delay.
9. In the above circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
At this stage, Sri. K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner would make -9- NC: 2025:KHC:33164-DB WP No. 17499 of 2025 HC-KAR representation seeking promotion and respondents be directed to consider the same.
It is open for the petitioner to submit such representation and if the petitioner submits such representation, it is open for the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23