Writ petition filed by Lokayuktha Registrars to quash Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order imposing penalty on officials. Court found no ground for interference due to Tribunal's reasoning, 25-year litigation history, and delayed filing, rejecting the writ.
Petition stands rejected; no interference with Tribunal's order is warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 17860 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 17860 OF 2019 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 21.06.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
WP No. 17860 of 2019
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the Registrar Lokayuktha and the Additional Registrar of Inquiries-3, Lokayuktha, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Tribunal.
hearing the parties, has rendered a finding in paragraph No.9 that the replies submitted by the applicants/DGOs does not find consideration. In other words, it is held that the order imposing penalty does not reflect consideration of the objections raised by the DGOs. In this regard, it has placed reliance on the case of Yuvaraj Naik J.M vs. State reported in 1996 KSLJ 92 , wherein it has been held that the proceedings should reflect a reasonable consideration of the objections to the 2nd Show Cause Notice and absence of such consideration should result in vitiation of the penalty order. Despite such a finding, the Tribunal has proceeded to balance the verdict by placing
WP No. 17860 of 2019
reliance on the loss suffered by the Government on account of the negligence of the DGOs. It has also taken into consideration the delay in framing charges and has taken note of the fact that allegations pertains to the year 1987 and the enquiry was concluded on 31.05.2003 with a report to the Government.
3. That apart, the Tribunal after assessing the
case on merits has been pleased to hold that justice would be done if quantum of penalty is reduced reasonably. It has also taken into consideration the long period of time consumed for adjudication of the application also. We find that in all, the litigation has been on Board for more than 25 years. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate not to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. That apart, we see that the instant writ petition is coming up for consideration nearly five years after the orders of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter also, we do not find any good ground, which warrants
WP No. 17860 of 2019
interference with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal.
The question of locus is kept open. That apart, it is seen that the aggrieved party the State has accepted the order. In that view, the petition stands rejected.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
DN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in reducing the penalty quantum given the long litigation period.
Whether the writ petition filed nearly five years after the Tribunal's orders warrants judicial interference.
Whether the petition stands rejected in view of the State accepting the Tribunal's order despite objections regarding consideration of replies.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yuvaraj Naik J.M vs. StateReferred¶28
Yuvaraj Naik J.M vs. State reported in 1996 KSLJ 92
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Registrar Karnataka Lokayuktha
The Additional Registrar of Inquiries-3, Karnataka Lokayuktha
The State of Karnataka
Sri. Abdul Razak
Sri Syed Khadiruddin
Sri Sarvotmachar
G. Narendar
S. Rachaiyah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
