WP/20282/2024 of SMT. S M UMA Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 24 June 2026

ORAL ORDER

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

The petitioner, unsuccessful applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “the Tribunal”) is before this Court, questioning the

HC-KAR

order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Application No.3143/2022 whereunder the prayer of the petitioner to quash the O.M. dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure-A8) by which, Rule 32 of KCSRs arrangement made insofar as petitioner is concerned is withdrawn while denying the regular promotion to the care of First Division Assistant/ Revenue Inspector (for short “FDA”).

2. The petitioner was working as Second Division Assistant at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya. Along with others, the petitioner was placed in independent charge under Rule 32 of KCSRs to the post of FDA under order dated 23.09.2020. Subsequently, under Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 11.07.2022, case of the petitioner along with others was placed for regular promotion to the post of FDA/Revenue Inspector. In the said proceedings, the case of the petitioner was not considered for regular promotion and instead, O.M. dated 11.07.2022 was issued withdrawing Rule 32 arrangement made in respect of the

HC-KAR

petitioner by posting her back as SDA. Questioning the said order, with a prayer to consider her case for regular promotion to the post of FDA, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal, under impugned order rejected the prayer of the petitioner holding that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for regular promotion is justifiable, since the respondents rightly rejected her case on the ground of unsatisfactory performance in the post of FDA. Questioning the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.Babu Rao for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sri.V.G.Bhanuprakash along with Sri.K.R.Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on 19.06.2026, the affidavit of Tahsildar of Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District is filed along with documents.

HC-KAR

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Babu Rao would submit that the case of the petitioner was not considered for regular promotion to the post of FDA/ Revenue Inspector solely on the ground that the petitioner was absent for certain period. Further, he submits that the respondents instead of promoting the petitioner as FDA, withdrew her posting as FDA under Rule 32 of KCSRs without any notice. Learned counsel would submit that DPC proceedings would indicate that the case of the petitioner for regular promotion was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner’s service is not satisfactory during her work on independent charge. However, no opportunity whatsoever is provided or no notice indicating her unsatisfactory work was communicated to the petitioner. Moreover, learned counsel would submit that promotion could be denied to a government servant only if an enquiry is pending or by issuance of charge memo or if the petitioner has suffered any penalty during the said period. It is his submission that no enquiry is pending

HC-KAR

against the petitioner nor the petitioner has suffered any penalty. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Bhanuprakash referring to the affidavit filed today submits that the work of the petitioner as FDA on her independent charge was not satisfactory and further he submits that as the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for certain period, case of the petitioner was rejected for regular promotion. Further, learned AAG would submit that the DPC acted upon the report of the Tahsildar.

7. To the Court query as to whether any departmental enquiry is instituted against the petitioner on the report of the Tahsildar, learned AAG would submit that no such enquiry is instituted as on this date. Learned AAG would also refer to the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 11.05.2022, 17.05.2022 and 21.05.2022 with

HC-KAR

regard to her absence from duty. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the application and rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to consider her case for regular promotion as FDA.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under Rule 32 of KCSRs to the post of FDA along with others under O.M. dated 23.09.2020. Thereafter, for certain period, the petitioner remained unauthorized absent and for that notices were issued on 11.05.2022, 17.05.2022 and on 21.05.2022. The petitioner submitted her reply to those notices. Thereafter, no further action is taken against the petitioner nor appropriate enquiry is initiated against the petitioner for the said unauthorized absence. However, the petitioner is taken to duty and she has continued to

HC-KAR

work as FDA. In the meanwhile, under DPC meeting held on 11.07.2022, case of the petitioner as well as others were taken up for consideration for regular promotion to the post of FDA. Against the petitioner in the DPC proceedings held on 11.07.2022, it is recorded as follows:

J¸ï.JA. GªÀiÁ, ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸À vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀbÉÃj, £ÁUÀªÀÄAUÀ® ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ vÀȦÛPÀgÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï £ÁUÀªÀÄAUÀ® gÀªÀgÀÄ £ËPÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ C£ÀħAzsÀ 1-4 zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²¸ÀÄÛPÀæªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ZÁ®£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉ vÀȦÛPÀgÀªÁV®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉzÀÄ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

The DPC would record that the service of the petitioner as FDA in independent charge is not satisfactory. The said note is said to be on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar. However, before recording such unsatisfactory service, no opportunity whatsoever is provided to the petitioner nor any notice is issued indicating her unsatisfactory service. Be that as it may, the respondent- Authorities withdrew the O.M. dated 11.07.2022 under which the petitioner was placed under independent charge and she was relegated to work as SDA at Taluk Office,

HC-KAR

Nagamangala. The said O.M. reverting the petitioner from FDA to SDA is without notice. Though normally, notice is not required when a person is displaced from Rule 32 of KCSRs, in the peculiar facts of the present case, when unsatisfactory work is alleged, notice was necessary.

10. Further more, the State Government has issued O.M. dated 14.07.1993 laying down certain guidelines for consideration of the case of government servants against whom enquiry is pending. In the instant case, no charge memo is issued nor the petitioner has suffered any penalty. In the above circumstances, the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary.

11. For the reasons recorded above, the following order:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.3143/2022 is set aside.

Consequently, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider

HC-KAR

the case of the petitioner for regular promotion to the cadre of FDA from the date her juniors are promoted to the said cadre, if she is otherwise eligible.

SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MPK CT:RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3