Karnataka Lokayukta Vs H K Thppeswamy

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.04.2025 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BANGALORE IN A.No434/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

¶33

Constitution of India, is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta calling in question the Order dated 17.04.2025 in Application No.434/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal' ] allowing the application filed by the private respondent herein is quashed the impugned order in the application, directing the Government to pay all the consequential including financial benefits to the applicant to which he is legally entitled to by the impugned order. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶34

The brief outline of facts leading to filing of

¶35

the petition are as under:

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

2.1 The applicant was working as Tahsildar at

¶40

Kundapura Taluk, and reported to duty and taken charge on 01.08.2018. One Smt Radha Marakalthi was granted Dharkhast land with a rider not to alienate the same for fifteen years from the date of grant. Thereafter, she has started to put up residential house in the said property as per the Building License issued by the Panchayat from 23.01.2018 to 22.01.2021. The said License was issued by the concerned Panchayat Office.

¶41

2.2 On a complaint by one Mr Madhukar

¶42

Shetty, a resident of Beluru Village, Kundapura Taluk alleging that the applicant as well as one Sri Veerashekara working as Panchayath Development Officer have not taken any action against illegal construction put up by Smt. Radha Marakalthi in Sy. No.270/17 measuring 0.16 cents situated at Beluru Village, Kundapura Taluk.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

2.3 The second respondent issued notice to

¶47

the applicant to which the applicant has submitted his reply. However, the second respondent without considering the reply, submitted a Report under Section 12[3] of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 [for short, 'the Act' ] with recommendation to entrust the matter for enquiry under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, 'the Rules' ]. The Government, thereafter, vide order dated 22.04.2021 entrusted the case under Rule 14-A of Rules to the second respondent-Lokayukta. The Enquiry Officer who was appointed has framed charges and has issued Articles of Charge dated 06.07.2021. Thereafter, the applicant has submitted his Reply to Articles of Charge on 06.09.2021 denying charges leveled against him and sought for dropping of further proceedings initiated against him as per Annexure-A4. Not satisfied with the reply, the enquiry was proceeded and concluded, wherein the

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

complainant, namely, Madhukar Shetty was examined as PW.1. The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the material placed before him and also the evidence of PW.1, held that charges leveled against the applicant stands proved and forwarded the same to the second respondent-Lokayukta. The same was forwarded by the second respondent-Lokayukta with the Recommendation dated 12.12.2022 recommending the first respondent to impose penalty of permanently withholding thirty percent of the pension payable to the applicant. The second show cause notice was issued on the applicant dated 04.02.2023 but served on the applicant on 30.03.2023 through the Tahsildar, Kundapura Taluk vide Annexure-A10. The applicant has submitted his detailed reply to the second show cause notice denying the allegations and requested to exonerate him from the charges as per Annexure-A11. The first respondent without considering or appreciating the reply, proceeded to impose penalty of permanently

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

withholding 30% of the pension payable to the applicant by means of the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 vide Annexure-A12.

¶56

2.4 Aggrieved by the order of imposition of

¶57

penalty, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.434/2025 calling in question the legality and correctness of the same.

¶58

2.5 Upon notice, the respondent-State appeared and filed the statement of objections contending that as per the procedure contemplated as per Section 12[3] of the Act as well as Rule 14A of the Rules, the enquiry was entrusted and the Enquiry Officer, after going through the entire material placed before him as well as the evidence in support of the same, held that the charges leveled against the applicant stands proved and submitted a Report which was ultimately forwarded to the Government with recommendation.

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

2.6 The Government thereafter issued second

¶63

show of notice and not satisfied with the reply to the second show cause notice, proceeded to impose the penalty recommended. All the procedures contemplated under the provisions of relevant law has been complied. As such, the applicant has no merits in the application and accordingly sought to dismiss the application. The second respondentLokayukta Authority has filed reply statement on a similar line as that of the State and sought to dismiss the application.

¶64

2.7 The Tribunal, after completion of

¶65

pleadings, heard both the sides and comes to a conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse since he has not considered the cross examination portion of PW1. The reasons for such finding by the Tribunal finds place in paragraph No.7 of the order passed by the Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal has extracted the cross examination portion

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

of the witness which we extract for easy reference,

¶70

reads as follows:

¶71

“£Á£ÀÄ D.¸À.£Ë gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®è KPÉAzÀgÉ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝªÀgÀÄ ¨Á®PÀÈµÀÚ ¨ÉÆÃgïPÀgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃr JAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÉ £Á£ÀÄ D.¸À.£Ë gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃnAiÀiÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. D.¸À.£Ë gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀÄAzÁ¥ÀÄgÀ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÁV PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÁdgÁUÀÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÉUÁV PÉÃ½zÀÝ PÀqÀvÀ wgÀ¸ÁÌgÀUÉÆAqÀÄ PÀqÀvÀªÀÅ £Á±ÀªÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÁV D.¸À.£Ë gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£Àß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ zÀÆgÀÄ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß zÀÆgÀÄ »A¢£À vÀºÀ²¯ÁÝgÀgÁzÀ ¨ÉÆÃgïPÀgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁvÀæ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶72

2.7 The Tribunal, after going through the

¶73

entire materials and documents placed before it is of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer has considered only the examination-in-chief of the witness and not considered the cross examination portions of the evidence which according to the Tribunal resulted in perverse finding. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

to allow the application, set aside the order impugned therein with the direction stated supra. It is this order passed by the Tribunal which is called in question by the second respondent-Lokayukta in the present petition.

¶78

Heard Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V Shiva Reddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the second respondent-State.

¶79

Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K S taking this Court through the order of the Tribunal contends that the Tribunal though extracted the crossexamination portion, but failed to consider the material placed before the Enquiry Officer particularly Articles of Charges and Exhibit-D7 wherein particularly at paragraph No.28, in the Enquiry Report, stated that as per Exhibit-D7, the case file number ALNCR 634/2016-17 was pending

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

with the DGO, he has not taken any action for removal of the encroachment of the road margin and allowed to put up illegal construction in the granted land violating the grant conditions and submitted that the Tribunal has missed this important aspect of the matter. To the query of the Court, on whether the said Exhibit-D7 has been substantiated by any evidence other than the evidence of PW.1-the complainant, Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K S fairly submitted that except PW1, no other witness has been examined.

¶84

In these circumstances, it becomes very hard for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the basis of paragraph-28 in the Enquiry Report. The Tribunal, after going through the entire material on record and the evidence has come to a proper conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has not properly considered the cross examination portion of PW1 which has resulted

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:39782-DB WP No. 29036 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

in perverse finding. We do not find any infirmities in the findings of the Tribunal which calls for any interference. Accordingly, the petition stands

¶89

dismissed.

¶90

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶91

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶92

AN/-

Karnataka Lokayukta v. H K Thppeswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayukta v. H K Thppeswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Informatica Llc

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Altair Engineering Inc.

Shivamadaiah M Vs the Director General

Sri.Prashant Kumar G Vs the Union of India

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Mr Shakir Razak