SRI. SUBHAS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — WP/104506/2016

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 13-Jun-2016

CNR: KAHC020080452016

Filing Number

WP/104506/2016

Filing Date

08-Jun-2016

Registration No

WP/104506/2016

Registration Date

08-Jun-2016

Judge

Jyoti M

Coram

Jyoti M

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

RES-Residuary ( 104 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SRI. SUBHAS

    Adv. M S HARAVI,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  2. 2.THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

  3. 3.THE COMMISSIONER

  4. 4.THE DEPOUTY COMMISSIONER

  5. 5.THE COMMISSIONER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Jyoti MView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition filed by Sri. Subhas Kambali, an Assistant Executive Engineer, challenging a show cause notice and charge sheet issued against him. The court held that articles of charge cannot be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as they do not constitute adverse orders affecting rights, and the appropriate remedy is to respond to the charges and participate in departmental proceedings. Consequently, all interim orders were discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Preliminary Hearing - B Group

    Jyoti M

  4. 05-Sep-2024

    Preliminary Hearing - B Group

    Ravi V.hosmani

  5. 13-Jun-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 13-Jun-2016

    Admission

    A.s.bopanna

  7. 08-Jun-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/104506/2016

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition filed by Sri. Subhas Kambali, an Assistant Executive Engineer, challenging a show cause notice and charge sheet issued against him. The court held that articles of charge cannot be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as they do not constitute adverse orders affecting rights, and the appropriate remedy is to respond to the charges and participate in departmental proceedings. Consequently, all interim orders were discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case