✦ Karnataka High Court

SRI. H. NAGARAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DB WP No. 1334 of 2019D K SINGH, VENKATESH NAIK T3 min read

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Judgment

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 1334 OF 2019 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN:

1. SRI. H. NAGARAJ S/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED REVENUE OFFICER R/O N. T. ROAD, 2ND CROSS NEW MANDALI SHIVAMOGGA -577 202. (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. SRI. MANOHAR S/O C NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. (BY SRI. MOHAMED RIZWAN AHAMED., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35851-DB WP No. 1334 of 2019 HC-KAR DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 FO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REPORT U/S 12(3) OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984, DATED 20.09.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-H; THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35851-DB WP No. 1334 of 2019 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are working as Revenue Officer and Chief Officer respectively of the Town Municipal Council, Shikaripur and who are facing enquiry from the Lokayukta.

2. After conducting enquiry, the report dated

20.09.2016 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') has been provided the Government proposing disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the petitioners. The Enquiry Officer has issued the charge memo. The petitioners, at this stage, have filed this writ petition impugning the Report dated 20.09.2016 issued under Section 12(3) of the Act (Annexure-H), the Entrustment Order dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure-J) and the Articles of Charge dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure-K). - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35851-DB WP No. 1334 of 2019 HC-KAR

3.

We have considered the submissions and perused the impugned report, entrustment order and the charge memo. The petitioners were issued show cause notices by the Lokayukta. After conducting investigation, the report dated 20.09.2016 was prepared and forwarded to the Government by the Enquiry Officer. The Entrustment Order has been passed after considering the report and the charge memo has been issued.

4.

We do not find that there has been infraction of law either by the Lokayukta or by the Competent Authority in submitting the report under Section 12(3) of the Act entrustment

20.08.2018 (Annexure-J). Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings and the charge memo dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure-K).

5.

The petitioners are given three weeks' time to file their reply to the charge memo if already not filed and after considering the reply to the charge memo, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35851-DB WP No. 1334 of 2019 HC-KAR Enquiry Officer will proceed with the enquiry against the petitioners in respect of the charges, in accordance with law.

6.

The petitioners will be at liberty to take the grounds of facts and law that may be available to them.

7.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. DB WP No. 1334 of 2019). ← Search more judgments