Honble Upa Lokayukta Vs Sri K G Manjunath

SRI K G MANJUNATH S/O GURU SHANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RETIRED DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY R/A NO.155, SAI KRUPA GEOLOGY LAYOUT DEEPA COMPLEX MAIN ROAD NAGARBHAVI II STAGE BENGALURU-560072.

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:39578-DB WP No. 29076 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) KARNATAKA CIRCLE PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R2, R3 AND R4)

¶22

THIS WP 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 26/03/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.5202/2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:39578-DB WP No. 29076 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2025 in Application No.5202/2024 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal' ]. The Tribunal, by this impugned order dated 26.03.2025, has quashed the second respondent's order dated 24.07.2024 for withholding twenty percent of the pension payable to the first respondent for two years.

¶31

The first respondent took charge of the post of ‘ a Senior Geologist', Bengaluru Urban District from 18.07.2013 and held that office until 01.08.2013 [ i.e., for twelve days ], and the reason for the decision to withhold twenty percent of the pension is a complaint dated 12.01.2013 lodged by the petitioner, who has alleged that the first respondent and the other concerned officers have encouraged illegal quarrying in Sy. No.100 of

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:39578-DB WP No. 29076 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Bettahalasoor Village, Bengaluru. The first

¶36

respondent is issued with notice of the complaint dated 04.04.2014, and he has retired with effect from 01.08.2014. The Article of Charges is served on the first respondent on 05.01.2017 including the imputation that he was not diligent in checking illegal quarry.

¶37

The Tribunal, while also upholding the

¶38

argument on behalf of the first respondent that the proceedings could not have been begun based on the observations by an Assistant Registrar of Enquiries [ARE], has also opined that the complaint of encouraging illegal quarry is essentially against those who were working prior to 12.07.2013 and that no purpose would be served for remitting back the proceedings for a de novo enquiry. Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V Shiva Reddy, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the second to fourth

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:39578-DB WP No. 29076 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶43

Sri Mallikarjun Reddy B S proposes to

¶44

argue against the Tribunal's finding on the enquiry being vitiated because of an observation made by an Assistant Registrar [Enquiries], but the questions germane for consideration is [i] whether there must be an interference with the Tribunal's order, and [ii] whether this Court can take exception with the Tribunal's finding that the allegations that are investigated are against those who have worked until 12.07.2013 and cannot involve the first respondent who was working for twelve days.

¶45

The Preliminary Hearing Report, which is the basis for the commencement of the proceedings, is categorical that the complaint of illegal quarrying is looked into for the period between 2008 and 2013, and that it is based on such investigation that the proceedings are begun. The others named in the

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:39578-DB WP No. 29076 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

report and against whom departmental proceedings are commenced have worked between 2009 - July 2013.

¶50

In the light of these undisputed facts, this Court must opine that there is no cause for interference with the Tribunal's order, and incidentally, this Court must observe that the proceedings has resulted in withdrawal of pension ten years from the date on which the petitioner demitted the office. As such, the petition stands disposed of observing that this disposal shall not in any manner affect the outcome of questions that are not examined in this order.

¶51

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶53

AN/-,RB

Honble Upa Lokayukta v. Sri K G Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Honble Upa Lokayukta v. Sri K G Manjunath

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

Nagaraja Srinivasa Rao Vs Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Kum. Saroja G.T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka