The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2019, PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NOS. 1362-1363/2018 AND ETC.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:46613-DB WP No. 13777 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶39

The Karnataka Lokayukta is in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 11.11.2019 in Application Nos.1362 & 1363/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed the applications and set-aside the order dated 27.01.2018 imposing penalty of withholding 10% of pension for a period of five years passed on applicant No.1.

¶40

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶41

A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:-

¶42

It is noticed that the Karnataka Lokayukta is not a party in the applications before the Tribunal.

¶43

As per applicant:

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46613-DB WP No. 13777 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The applicants who belong to respondent No.2 department - Public Works, Ports & Inland-Water Transport Limited were on deputation to the Urban Development Authority and were working under respondent No.3 at the relevant time.

¶47

A complaint comes to be filed on 07.12.2013 by one Smt.Mehaboob Bi with respect to unauthorized construction in site bearing No.19/1. The applicants have taken action against the unauthorized construction and initiated proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'KMC Act, 1976'). The owner of the unauthorized constructions approached the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.216/2014 and obtained interim order of stay of the proceedings initiated under Section 321 of the KMC Act, 1976. The disciplinary authority upon receipt of report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 entrusted the matter to Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules, 1957'). Upon entrustment, an Inquiry Officer has been appointed to hold

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46613-DB WP No. 13777 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

an inquiry. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer issued notice along with articles of charge. The Inquiry Officer in the enquiry upon considering the entire material placed before him, held that the charge of dereliction of duty and misconduct leveled against the applicants, in not taking steps against the unauthorized construction is proved and submitted his report to the Karnataka Lokayukta. The Lokayukta in turn forwarded the report to the Government with recommendation. The Government upon receipt of report and recommendation issued second show-cause notice enclosing the report as well as the recommendation to applicant No.1. Applicant No.1 submitted his detail explanation against the show cause notice. The Government despite the explanation proceeded to pass the order of penalty of withholding 10% pension for a period of five years in respect of applicant No.1 who retired from service on 31.07.2018. Aggrieved by the order of imposing penalty, applicant No.1 along with another was before the Tribunal in Application Nos.1362 & 1363/2018.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46613-DB WP No. 13777 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Upon notice of the applications, the respondent Government appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the applications.

¶54

The Tribunal upon perusal of the entire material placed on record and the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, held that the applicants have initiated action as contemplated under the KMC Act, 1976, on the complaint of unauthorized construction cannot be said that they have not discharged the duty properly and their act amounts to dereliction of duty and misconduct. The Tribunal has further opined that the action of Lokayukta without considering the provisions contained under Section 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 proceeded to entertain the complaint is untenable in law and holding so, allowed the application and set-aside the order impugned in the application, by its order dated 11.11.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by five year five months.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46613-DB WP No. 13777 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for

¶58

the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1, 2 & 4. Perused the entire writ papers.

¶59

Though the petitioner is not a party to the application before the Tribunal, on a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by five year five months, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by laches too. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 is called upon to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶60

The petitioner is not an exception to the case, when there is delay and laches in approaching the Court,

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46613-DB WP No. 13777 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis as the delay defeats all the rights. On scrutiny of the entire case papers, we find no reason to condone the enormous delay. This Court, if it ignores the obvious and enormous delay, will foster injustice, as it is likely to affect others. A finality attained cannot be permitted to be reopened if there is unreasonable lapse of time. The unexplained delay of five year five months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected .

¶64

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶65

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶66

TKN

¶67

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Private Ltd.

Dr. Jagadeesha K G, Vs Major (Retd) Siddalingayya Hiremath

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited

Mr Ravindra Naik K Vs Union of India

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka