The petition to quash KSAT and State Government orders was dismissed for lack of lis. The court noted the employee had already retired and the subsequent exoneration order was unchallenged before the appropriate forum, though legal grounds were kept open.
Petition dismissed for lack of lis; grounds kept open for future consideration.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 58805 OF 2016 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R2 & R3; SRI. GIRISH S. JAMBAGI, ADV. FOR R1 [ABSENT])
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
NC: 2023:KHC:37433-DB WP No. 58805 of 2016
12.7.2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2252/2007 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ORDER DATED 26.7.2014 PASSED IN KAE165ETI2007, BANGALORE, PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AS WELL AS ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE R-2 IN KAE670ETI2015 PASSED ON 30.3.2016.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, with following prayers:
(i) To issue Writ of Certiorari by quashing the order dated 12th July 2013 passed by the KSAT,1 in Application No.2252/2007 as per Annexure-A, order dated 26.07.2014 passed in KAE165ETK2007, Bangalore, passed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-C as well as Annexure-E passed by the 2nd respondent in KAE670ETI2015 passed on 20.03.2016;
(ii) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
for the petitioner and Shri Shamanth Naik, learned HCGP for respondents No.2 and 3/State. Shri Girish S.Jambagi, learned Counsel on record for respondent No.1 is absent.
1 Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
passed after considering the enquiry report and the recommendation made by the Lokayukta and following the due process of law. There is no legal infirmity in the penalty order and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.
passed an order as per Annexure-C dated 27.06.2014 and exonerated respondent No.1. The Lokayukta vide letter dated 28.12.2015 (Annexure-D) requested the Government to review the order dated 26.07.2014. The Government have replied as per Annexure-E dated 30/31.03.2016 stating that no review was necessary. The petitioner has now challenged the subsequent order passed by the Government dated 27.06.2014 and the endorsement as per Annexure-E without approaching the KSAT. In any event, pursuant to the impugned order passed by the KSAT, the State Government have exonerated respondent No.1. That order is not challenged before the appropriate forum viz., KSAT. The respondent No.1 has retired from service whilst the instant application was pending before the KSAT. In view of the fact that the subsequent order dated 26.07.2014 is not challenged, there is no lis for consideration.
fail and it is accordingly dismissed. However, as prayed
NC: 2023:KHC:37433-DB WP No. 58805 of 2016
for by Shri Arabatti, grounds raised in this petition, touching upon the question of law, if any, are kept open
for consideration in an appropriate case.
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KNM CT:HS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed to quash the orders of the KSAT and the State Government is maintainable when the subsequent exoneration order by the Government was not challenged before the appropria
Whether a lis exists to consider the grounds raised in the petition regarding the lawfulness of the penalty order, given that the employee has already retired and the subsequent order remains unchalle
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Registrar Karnataka Lokayukta
Sri C L Kittur
The State of Karnataka
The Director of Employment and Training
P.S.DINESH KUMAR
T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
