Y. N. Krishna Murthy Vs the Karnataka Lokayukta

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19-6-2025 VIDE LETTER NO.LOK/BCD/1839/2025/ARE-1 ENCLOSED THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION NOTE DATED 30-5-2025 WAS ACCEPTED BY LOKAYUKTA ON 18-6-2025 VIDE LETTER NO.COMPT/LOK/BCD/1839/2025/ARE-1.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

Heard Sri Y. N. Krishna Murthy, petitioner-in-person,

¶28

Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned Special counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

The petitioner was working as a Sales Officer in respondent No.2-Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited, Bengaluru. Now, he stands superannuated with effect from 30.11.2022 and in past, he had faced some disciplinary proceedings which got quashed by this Court. Apprehending another disciplinary proceedings against him, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Lokayukta on 02.04.2025 alleging maladministration and abuse of the power and authority by the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37331-DB WP No. 21931 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Managing Director of respondent No.2. He also alleged that the new enquiry is set up on the basis of the concocted documents and the false statements of the witnesses. The said complaint was examined by the Scrutiny Officer, Additional Registrar of Enquiries-1, Lokayukta, and it was opined that it would be for the inquiry authority to examine the evidence and material on record and the complainant would have an ample opportunity to dispute the genuineness of the record, if he believes the same are concocted. It was also opined that as per Section 8(1)(a) read with (d) of the Second Schedule, the Lokayukta is barred from taking up investigation in respect of any grievance involving appointment, discipline, pay or conditions of service of public servants. The Lokayukta accepted the scrutiny note and closed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶33

We have posed a question to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, whether any disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner as alleged in the complaint dated 02.04.2025. The categorical stand of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that no disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:37331-DB WP No. 21931 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

inasmuch as he stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation way back in the year, 2022.

¶38

As there is no disciplinary enquiry pending against the petitioner or has been instituted, the allegations of the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings have been instituted on the basis of the concocted documents and false statements/evidence of the witnesses does not have any legs to stand. We, therefore, do not find that the Lokayukta has committed any error of law, jurisdiction while closing the complaint filed by the petitioner. Having considered the material on record, and the submissions made Sri Y. N. Krishna Murthy, petitioner-in-person, Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned Special counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel for respondent No.2, we do not find that there is any merit in this petition. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition.

¶39

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶40

KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Y. N. Krishna Murthy v. the Karnataka Lokayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. N. Krishna Murthy v. the Karnataka Lokayukta

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

Smt. Geetha C Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Blackrain Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator Attached to the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Sri Ashok Prakash Vs the Official Liquidator

The Deputy Director Vs the Chief Executive Officer Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shubha

Smt Shobha Bai Vs M/S Thirumala Milk Products Pvt. Ltd.