Dismissed

Sri. K Ranganath v. the Registerar

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2025WA/570/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order setting aside the Government's rejection of a Lokayukta Section 12(3) report recommending departmental enquiry against an officer. Held that the Lokayukta has locus standi to challenge such refusal, and that Section 8(1)(b)'s alternative-remedy bar applies only to grievances, not allegations.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. K Ranganath Vs the Registerar — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.570 OF 2023 (GM-KLA)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K. RANGANATH

S/O KENCHAPPA

OCCUPATION: PREVIOUSLY WORKED

¶12

AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶13

BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION

¶14

BENGALURU-560 009

¶15

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. 11^TH CROSS, CHAITANYA NAGARA

¶16

DATTATREYA CHOULTRY ROAD

¶17

DODDABALLAPURA-561 203

¶18

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶19

...APPELLANT

¶20

(BY SRI. PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

1 . THE REGISTERAR

¶23

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDINGS

¶24

¶25

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD

¶26

BENGALURU-560 001

¶27

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2)

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.03.2023 IN W.P.No.54012/2018 (GM-KLA) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2023 IN R.P.No.203/2023 AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶33

¶34

CAV JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶36

This writ appeal is filed challenging the Order dated 13.03.2023 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.54012/2018 (GM-KLA).

¶37

Heard Shri. Prasanna B.R, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned standing counsel for Lokayukta-respondent No.1 and Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate for State/respondent No.2.

¶38

The Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta had filed the writ petition in Writ Petition No.54012/2018, challenging Annexure-A, Government Order No.DPAR 103 KEV 2016, dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Government of Karnataka, by which the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, recommending Departmental Enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('KCS (CCA) Rules' for short) against the appellant herein was rejected.

¶39

¶40

It was the case of the petitioner that a complaint was lodged by one Srinivas against the appellant herein alleging dereliction of duty. An investigation was conducted under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Finding sufficient material, a report dated 14.06.2016 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was forwarded to the first respondent recommending departmental enquiry. By Annexure-A order, the Government rejected the report, relying on an opinion of the Revenue Department and an Informal Note of the Revenue Department dated 15.05.2017.

¶41

The learned Single Judge found that the reliance on extraneous materials was completely unjustified. It was noticed that the complaint against respondent No.2 was not a grievance but an allegation under Section 2(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. It was found that once the Lokayukta had conducted an enquiry, after putting appellant on notice and considering the relevant aspects, it was not open to the Government to rely on extraneous material to reject the recommendation.

¶42

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the specific contention of the appellant was that the allegation in the complaint was with regard to change of khata. The contention that complainant had an effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964, and that there could have been no enquiry under Section 9 in view of Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, was not considered by the learned Single Judge.

¶44

It is further contended that the Karnataka Lokayukta would not be "a person aggrieved" by the refusal on the part of the Government to act on the recommendation of the Lokayukta and the writ petition itself ought to have been dismissed.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the following decisions:-

¶46

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. The State of Karnataka, by order dated 15.04.2025 passed in W.P. No.2981/2023 (S-KSAT) ;

¶47

¶48

M/s. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in ILR 2015 KAR 5591;

¶49

Sri. Subhindra A Gumaste and Others v. The State of Karnataka and Others, by Order dated 15.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.25078-80/2016 (GM-KLA) ;

¶50

The Registrar v. Dr. Dakshayini K., by order dated 07.06.2021 passed in W.P.No.58804/2016 (S-KAT) ; and

¶51

The Registrar v. The Principal Secretary to Government, by order dated 25.01.2022 passed in W.P.No.12733 of 2021 (GM-KLA) .

¶52

The learned standing counsel appearing for the Lokayukta, on the other hand, contends that the purpose of Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act has been specifically considered by a Co-equal Bench of this Court. It was found that it was only where an inter s e dispute between two persons where alternative remedy is available in the normal law that the bar under Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act would apply. It is further contended that Co-equal Benches of this Court had considered the issue on maintainability of a Writ Petition

¶53

¶54

filed by the Lokayukta and has clearly held that Lokayukta would have the locus standi to challenge the orders passed by the Government refusing to initiate action against a delinquent Officer when the recommendation by the Lokayukta was positive in nature. Further, it is contended that the Government is not sitting in appeal over a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, and can consider the matter only on the basis of the materials placed before it in the report and cannot make a roving enquiry on its own.

¶55

We have considered the contentions advanced. We immediately notice that the question before this Court is whether the Lokayukta would be a person aggrieved has been considered by several Benches of this Court. It has been clearly held that in the scheme of the Lokayukta Act and the purposes for which the authority has been constituted, the Lokayukta would definitely have the locus standi to challenge orders of the Government refusing to initiate disciplinary proceedings where the report recommending such action has been submitted by the

¶56

¶57

Lokayukta. In The Karnataka Lokayukta v. The State of Karnataka and another, by order dated 15.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.2981 of 2023 (S-KSAT) and connected matters, the Division Bench of this Court , observed in paragraph No.5 as follows:-

¶58

"5. x x x x x We hasten to add that should the Government let off delinquent employees, the Lokayukta will have the competence and locus to lay a challenge to such decisions of the Government if grounds do avail in law for the same." x x x x x

¶59

Further, in The Hon'ble Additional Registrar v. Sri

¶60

Nanjunda Shetty and another, by order dated 21.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.46781 of 2016 and connected matters, the Court remarked that the question of standing must be assessed on a case-by-case basis as it necessarily depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The judgment of the learned Single Judge which is relied on by the appellant is in respect of locus standi is therefore no longer good law. A co-equal Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.105477 of 2023 decided on 3^rd September, 2024, considered the question of locus standi of the

¶61

¶62

Lokayukta with reference to the decisions on the point and came to the conclusion that the Lokayukta, which is a statutory authority formed in terms of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act would indeed have the locus standi to challenge the orders passed in applications which are essentially adverse to public interest.

¶63

Moreover, the situation contemplated in Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act is one where the complainant has an efficacious remedy by way of an appeal, revision, review or other proceedings to address his grievance and this provision has no application in the facts of the present case. Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act provides as follows:-

¶64

"8. Matters not subject to investigation.-

¶65

(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upa-Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action.-

¶66

(a) x x x x x

¶67

(b) if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal revision, review or other proceedings before any Tribunal, [Court Officer or other

¶68

¶69

authority and has not availed of the same.]"

¶70

Firstly, the said provision is applicable only in the case of a "grievance" as defined in Section 2(8) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. The present case involves an "allegation" as defined in Section 2(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. The bar under Section 8(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act would not be applicable in a case where the complaint discloses an allegation against a public servant.

¶71

We also notice that all the decisions relied by the appellant are matters where the complaint involved a grievance and the complainant had efficacious alternate remedies.

¶72

We notice that the appellant had also attempted a review before the learned Single Judge, which was also rejected by order dated 21.04.2023 in R.P.No.203/2023.

¶73