THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA v. SRI VISHWANATH

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 7519 OF 2020 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -01. (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.) …PETITIONER NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

SRI VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. SHANKARAPPA, ASST. ENGINGEER, PRE SUB- DIVISION, KOPPAL, R/AT TALUK PANCHAYAT QUARTERS, NO.3, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583237.

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF PANCYATH RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560001. (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11677-DB WP No. 7519 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.8102/2014, PASSED ON 03.10.2018 QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX-A, FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 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 K.V.ARAVIND) The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court impugning order dated 03.10.2018 passed in Application No.8102/2014 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”).

2. Respondent No.1, impugning the order dated 21.07.2014 entrusting the enquiry under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11677-DB WP No. 7519 of 2020 HC-KAR short, “the CCA Rules”), preferred an application before the Tribunal.

2.1 Under the impugned order, the Tribunal proceeded to set aside the order of entrustment of enquiry to the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that notice under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, which is mandatory, had not been issued to respondent No.1, and secondly, on the merits of the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, would submit that the finding recorded in paragraph 8 of the order, to the effect that no notice was issued under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, is factually incorrect. It is contended that such notice had, in fact, been issued. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal, being founded on incorrect facts, is unsustainable.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, we notice that the order of the Tribunal is dated

03.10.2018, arising out of an application filed in the year 2014. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11677-DB WP No. 7519 of 2020 HC-KAR In the year 2014, respondent No.1 was aged about 53 years. The present writ petition is listed today for ‘Preliminary Hearing’. The grounds urged in the writ petition are not sufficient to entertain the petition after such a long lapse of time. Further, even if interference were to be made, the order of entrustment being more than 12 years old would result in hardship to respondent No.1, who would now be aged about 65 years.

4.1 Even if the writ petition was to be entertained and the petitioner be permitted to conduct the enquiry at this distant point of time, it would only amount to a futile exercise. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this point of time submits that the observations made in paragraph 8 of the impugned order are factually incorrect and may have an adverse bearing on other cases.

Since we have not examined the merits of the said contention, the submission urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is kept open. However, it is made clear that the - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11677-DB WP No. 7519 of 2020 HC-KAR observation in paragraph 8 of the impugned order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.

Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22