Smt. Jayamala Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Jayamala Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lokayukta's report under Section 12(3), alleged by the petitioner to be not based on the evidence and to have ignored relevant material and important evidence, validly found no material to substantiate the charge for holding the disciplinary enquiry against DGOs 1, 2 and 3. +1 more

Court's answer

There has been no infraction of the law while conducting the investigation and submitting the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.

Ratio / Principle

The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, is not the fact-finding authority and does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the enquiry made by the Karnataka Lokayukta; once the competent authority, after examining the evidence, concludes there was no material to substantiate the charges against the delinquent government officials, the court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to say that the charges have been proved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), WP No. 1451 of 2024 (GM-KLA), decision dated 08-09-2025; bench: Justice D K Singh (author) and Justice Venkatesh Naik T. Petitioner, a complainant before the Karnataka Lokayukta in Complaint No.COMPT/LOK/BCD/405/2008 regarding her jewellery shop (Rajalakshmi Jewellers), filed this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking (a) quashing of the Lokayukta enquiry report No. LOK/INQ/14A/7/2010/ARE-3 dated 09/10/2019 (Annexure-C) insofar as it held the charge against DGOs 1 and 2 (R3 and R4) not proved, (b) setting aside of R2's recommendation No. LOK/ARE-3/ENQ-7/2010 dated 08/11/2019 (Annexure-E) recommending discharge of R3 and R4 inter se and confirmation of Suresh Babu (now deceased), and (c) quashing of R1's exoneration order No. LOK 254 SeEiVi 2009 dated 27/12/2019 (Annexure-F), alleging the Section 12(3) report ignored relevant material and important evidence. Investigation had been conducted under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and the Section 12(3) report found no material to hold the Disciplinary Enquiry against DGOs 1, 2 and 3 (including retired Tahsildar Jagannatha Rao and retired Executive Engineer D.Ramegowda). Held (per Justice D K Singh): the High Court under Article 226 is not the fact-finding authority and does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the Lokayukta enquiry; once the competent authority concludes there was no material to substantiate the charges, the court cannot re-appreciate the evidence; there was no infraction of law in the investigation and the Section 12(3) report. Writ petition dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35069-DB WP No. 1451 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2024 (GM-KLA)

BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYAMALA W/O RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF C/O RAJKUMAR JEWELLERS PETE BEEDHI, ARKALGUDU, HASSAN - 573 102.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES - III M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

SRI JAGANNATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O MYLARAIAH RETIRED TAHSILDAR

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35069-DB WP No. 1451 of 2024

HC-KAR

ARKALGUDU TOWN, PANCHAYATH, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

SRI D.RAMEGOWDA

S/O LATE G.N.DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R/AT NO.312, 4^TH MAIN, VHBCS LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA A.K., AGA FOR R1; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FO R2; SRI. N.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. VIJAY KUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO. LOK/INQ/14A/7/2010/ARE-3 DATED 09/10/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY R2 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO HOLDING THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST DGOS 1 AND 2 (R3 AND 4) IN NOT HAVING BEEN PROVED IS CONCERNED, AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND IN VIOLATION OF THE FINDINGS IN 2(3) REPORT. b) SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE R2 VIDE NO. LOK/ARE-3/ENQ-7/2010 DATED 08/11/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY RECOMMENDING TO DISCHARGE R3 AND 4 AMONG ONE ANOTHER SRI. SURESH BABU WHO IS NOW DECEASED, BE CONFIRMED. c) QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. LOK 254 SeEiVi 2009 BENGALURU DATED 27/12/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE R1 EXONERATING THE R3 AND 4 AND ONE ANOTHER SRI. SURESH BABU WHO IS NOW DECEASED, AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VOID.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35069-DB WP No. 1451 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The petitioner who runs a jewellery shop in the name of Rajalakshmi Jewellers was a complainant before the Karnataka Lokayukta in Complaint No.COMPT/LOK/BCD/405/2008. An investigation was carried out by the Lokayukta under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. After the submission of the preliminary report in respect of the complaint of the petitioner, a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was prepared in accordance with law. The Lokayukta in its report found that there was no material to hold the Disciplinary Enquiry against DGOs 1, 2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) is not based on the evidence. The relevant material and the important evidence have been ignored by the Lokayukta while submitting its report under Section 12(3) and holding that there was no material to substantiate the charge for holding the disciplinary enquiry against DGOs 1, 2 and 3.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35069-DB WP No. 1451 of 2024

HC-KAR

The High Court is exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not the fact finding Authority and do not sit as an Appellate Authority over the enquiry made by the Karnataka Lokayukta. Once the Competent Authority after examining the evidence, has come to the conclusion that, there was no material to substantiate the charges against the delinquent government officials, we cannot re-appreciate the evidence to say that the charges have been proved. There has been no infraction of the law while conducting the investigation and submitting the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.

We, therefore find no substance in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

SD/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

DHA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17