THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

#2. SRI SHIVALINGEGOWDA …PETITIONER S/O LATE N LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE, BBMP BENGALURU. (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA. FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32800-DB WP No. 14475 of 2023 HC-KAR NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24/12/2020 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.2366/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. 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) Petitioner-Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 24.12.2020 Application No.2366/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengalurru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the respondent No.2’s application is allowed, quashing the articles of charge dated 11.01.2018 issued by the petitioner.

#2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Joseph Anthony for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32800-DB WP No. 14475 of 2023 HC-KAR

#3. On certain allegation of misconduct against respondent No.2, the petitioner investigated and submitted report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘1984 Act’). Based on the said report, the first respondent – State Government under Government order dated 11.10.2017 entrusted the enquiry against respondent No.2 to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). In pursuance to the said entrustment, articles of charge dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure-A10) was issued against the respondent No.2. Questioning the entrustment order as well as articles of charge, the second respondent was before the Tribunal in Application No.2366/2018. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 24.12.2020 quashed the order of entrustment as well as the articles of charge mainly on the ground that while passing the entrustment order, the first respondent – State Government has not applied its mind independently and has proceeded - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32800-DB WP No. 14475 of 2023 HC-KAR mechanically to pass the impugned order entrusting the enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta. Questioning the said order, the petitioner-Lokayukta is before this Court.

#4. Learned counsel Sri. Joseph Anthony petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate impugned order of entrustment was passed based on the report submitted by the petitioner under Section 12(3) of 1984 Act and while accepting the said report, the first respondent – State Government need not assign any elaborate reason. Further, learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the impugned order of entrustment dated

11.10.2017 and submits that it would indicate the application of mind by the State Government and that on reading of the impugned order, it could be said that the State has not mechanically passed the order and it has applied its mind while passing the order. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32800-DB WP No. 14475 of 2023 HC-KAR

#5. To the Court’s query, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the State has not preferred any writ petition against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

#6. The facts are not in dispute. The Tribunal under impugned order, on perusal of the material on record, at paragraph 7 has observed as follows: “………………………..Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Government while passing the impugned order under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules has not applied its mind independently as required under Section 12(4) of the K.L Act and mechanically proceeded to pass the impugned order entrusting the enquiry to the Upalokayukta. Hence, the applicant has made out a case.”

#7. A reading of the above portion of the order would make it amply clear that the impugned order of entrustment passed under Section Rule 14A of CCA Rules quashed on the ground that the State has not applied its mind independently and mechanically proceeded to pass the impugned order of entrusting the enquiry to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32800-DB WP No. 14475 of 2023 HC-KAR Upa-Lokayukta. When the Tribunal has categorically found that the State has failed to apply its mind independently and has passed the order mechanically, it is for the State to establish that the State has applied its mind and the order entrusting the enquiry is not passed mechanically.

#8. Admittedly, the State has not filed any writ petition questioning the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. When the State has not challenged the impugned order of Tribunal, it is not open for the Enquiry Authority – the petitioner to question such order.

#9. Further, it is seen that the impugned order of the Tribunal is dated 24.12.2020, whereas the writ petition is filed on 06.7.2023, more than 2 ½ years delay. At the time of fling the application before the Tribunal by the second respondent, he was aged 59 years and as on this day, the petitioner has attained superannuation and he is aged more than 65 years. At this length of time and in the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32800-DB WP No. 14475 of 2023 HC-KAR evening of his life, if the notice is order, it would amount to harassing the respondent No.2.

#10. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13