(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the Nature of Certiorari and quash the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi in Application No.10871/2023 produced at Annexure-A, in the interest of justice and equity.)

Oral Order

S.G. Pandit, J.

1. The petitioners-Lokayukta Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 20.12.2024 in Application No.1087 (For short, 'Tribunal')/2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi1, whereunder, the following order is passed:

          (i) The application is allowed in part.

          (ii) The impugned order bearing No.UPLOK- 1/DE-1162/2017/ARE-16 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A3 and impugned recommendation bearing No.UPLOK- 1/DE/1162/2017/ARE-16 dated 26.6.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure- A4) and the impugned order bearing No.ThoE/208/ThoSePa/2016 (part-1), dated 17.4.2021 passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure-A8) are quashed.

          (iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to consider the reply submitted by the applicant to the 2nd show-cause notice and after recording specific findings to pass appropriate orders.

          (iv) The time for compliance is two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Patil for respondent No.1 as well as learned AGA Sri. Sharad V Magadum for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The petitioners were the respondents No.2 and 3 and respondent No.1 was the applicant before the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale for the petitioners would submit that the finding of the Tribunal at paragraph- 24 to the effect that the reply of the applicant to 2nd show cause notice is not considered before passing the impugned order. It is submitted that if that is so, the Tribunal ought to have remitted the matter back to the respondent No.2/government to consider the reply and pass fresh orders. However, he submits that on the observation that the reply submitted by the applicant to the 2nd show-cause notice is not considered, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the enquiry report at Annexure-A3 dated 24.06.2020 and recommendation of Upa-Lokayukta dated 26.6.2020 at Annexure-A4. Thus, learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale would pray for modifying the order of the Tribunal, so as to consider the reply of the applicant by the State Government.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Patil for the applicant would submit that the Tribunal is justified in quashing the enquiry report as well as recommendation of Upa-Lokayukta, while quashing the order of penalty of withholding the two annual increments and recovery of a sum of Rs.1,18,000/-, since the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law.

6. Learned AGA Sri. Sharad V Magadum for the respondents/State would support the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/Lokayukta.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that would arise for consideration is as to, whether the Tribunal while passing the impugned order, is justified in quashing the enquiry report dated 24.6.2020 (Annexure- A3) and recommendation of Upa-Lokayukta dated 26.6.2020 (Annexure-A4) on the finding that the reply of the applicant, in pursuance of the 2nd show-cause notice, is not considered.

8. Answer to the above point would be in the "partly negative" for the following reasons:

9. The applicant was before the Tribunal questioning the Enquiry Report dated 24.6.2020 (Annexure- A3) and Recommendation of Upa-Lokayuta dated 26.6.2020 (Annexure-A4) along with impugned order dated 26.4.2021 imposing the penalty of withholding two annual increments and recovery of a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- from the salary and allowances and from the pensionary benefits (Annexure- A8). While considering the said application, the Tribunal at paragraph-24 has recorded its finding, which reads as under:

          "24. As the 1st respondent has not considered the reply submitted by the applicant to the 2nd show-cause notice and has not recorded by findings before passing the impugned order, the matter has to be remitted back to the 1st respondent, in order to consider the reply submitted by the applicant and after recording findings has to pass appropriate order."

10. When the Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the reply submitted by the applicant in pursuance of 2nd show-cause notice is not considered, then it was not for the Tribunal to quash the enquiry report as well as recommendation of Upa-Lokayukta. To that extent, the Tribunal committed an error. The reply of the applicant submitted to second show-cause notice shall have to be considered at the time of passing penalty order. Therefore, on the finding of the Tribunal, it would suffice if the order of penalty is set aside. To that extent, the order of the Tribunal requires interference. Hence, the following:

ORDER

          a) The Writ Petition stands partly allowed;

          b) The impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.10871/2023 insofar as quashing the Enquiry report dated 24.6.2020 (Annexure- A3), recommendation of Upa-Lokayukta dated 26.6.2020 (Annexure-A4) is hereby set-aside;

          c) Order dated 20.12.2024 in Appliction No.10871/2023 by the Tribunal quashing penalty order dated 17.04.2021 (Annexure- A8) is confirmed.

          d) Respondent No.2/State Government shall proceed to consider the reply submitted by the applicant in pursuance of 2nd show-cause notice and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from today, if not already passed.

          Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration.