The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, Location: HIGH URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, COURT OF VIKAS SOUDHA, KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

MR. S. P. RANGANATHA, S/O S. D. PURUSHOTHAMA,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28864-DB WP No. 11175 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B. B. M. P. KRISHNARAJPURAM, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BBMP OFFICE COMPLEX, K. R. PURAM, BENGALURU.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE AND SRI PADMANABHA J., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 5236/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE - A.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶27

and

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶31

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

¶32

Constitution of India by the Karnataka Lokayukta represented by its Registrar, is directed against the order dated 12.09.2019 in Application No.5236/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal')

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28864-DB WP No. 11175 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

allowing the respondent No.3's application questioning the Government Order dated 03.07.2015 entrusting the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 (Annexure-A3) and articles of charge dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure-A4).

¶36

Heard Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Keerthi Krishna Reddy, learned counsel and Sri. Padmanabha J., learned counsel for Sri. Abhisehk Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶37

Respondent No.3 approached the Tribunal

¶38

questioning the Government Order entrusting the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14 A of CCA Rules, 1957 and consequent articles of charge dated 04.01.2016. The Tribunal under impugned order quashed both the Government Order as well as articles of charge on the ground that there is delay of 10 years in issuing the charge memo and also on the ground that the Government has dropped the enquiry insofar as one of the AGO on the ground that the charges are not specific and

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28864-DB WP No. 11175 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

clear. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶42

Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the

¶43

petitioner in addition to the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that there is no delay in issuing the charge memo and submits that since initially there were 11 AGOs, it took some time to investigate and forward the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to Government. Immediately on receipt of the Government Order entrusting the enquiry under Annexure-A3, the petitioner took action to issue the charge memo. Further, learned counsel would submit that in the matter of departmental enquiry, the principles of parity would have no application. The enquiry is to be conducted on the misconduct of an individual. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

¶45

respondent No.3 would support the order passed by the Tribunal. Further submits that the incident relates to the year 2006 and 2010 whereas the charge memo is issued on 04.01.2016. There is inordinate delay in initiating the enquiry.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28864-DB WP No. 11175 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Further, learned counsel would also point out that the impugned order was passed on 12.09.2019 whereas the writ petition is filed on 03.06.2022 more than three yeas from the date of passing the order. Thus, submits that there is delay in filing the present writ petition and on the said ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that would fall for consideration is as to whether the impugned order under challenge requires interference at the hands of this Court. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:

¶50

A perusal of articles of charge dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure-A4), it is seen that the allegation against respondent No.3 and others relate to purchase of submersible pumps for the borewells and also construction of administrative building. The said purchase of submersible pumps was during the year 2005, whereas the opening of administrative building was held on 18.12.2006, but the investigation is subsequent to 2010 and ultimately, the charge memo was issued only on 04.01.2016.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28864-DB WP No. 11175 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

There is nearly 10 years delay in initiating the enquiry from the date of incident i.e., purchase of submersible borewells in the year 2005.

¶54

It is also seen from the Government Order dated 11.10.2018 (Annexure-A6) wherein, the enquiry against one Sri. Panduranga Bommayya Nayaka is dropped would indicate that,

¶55

""DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À°è ¸ÀàµÀÖvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤RgÀvÉ PÀAqÀÄ§gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ °TvÀ ºÉÃ½SÉAiÀÄ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ ²æÃ ¥ÁAqÀÄgÀAUÀ ¨ÉÆªÀÄäAiÀÄå £ÁAiÀÄPï, ¨Á. D. ¸ÉÃ. EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½AzÀ PÉÊ ©qÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ."

¶56

The Government itself has come to the conclusion that the charges are not specific and clear and has dropped enquiry against one of the accused Government Official. When the common charges are made and if the charge against one accused is not specific and precise, the same would apply to the other accused also.

¶57

Further petitioner is not diligent. There is delay in challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. No explanation is forthcoming in the petition with regard to delay. The petitioner

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28864-DB WP No. 11175 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

a creature of statute ought to be more responsible. As there is unexplained delay of more than three years, in approaching this Court, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground also.

¶61

In the above circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal is proper and correct. Delay in initiating the enquiry would prejudices the cases of either parties. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

¶62

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶64

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lakshmana Vs the Additional Cheif Secretary to Government

Smt Vanitha N Vs the State of Karnataka

The Registar Karnataka Lokayuktha Vs State of Karnataka