Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION 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 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED JULY 09, 2018 IN APPLICATION BEARING No-2658/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:46002-DB WP No. 29412 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

The Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question Order dated 09.07.2018 in Application No.2658/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), partly allowing the application, setting aside the order impugned dated 03.02.2017 ( Annexure-A6 ), remitting the matter to the Government to pass orders under Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘ the Act of 1984’ for short), afresh after considering report under Section 12(3) with other directions.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:46002-DB WP No. 29412 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

On some allegations of misconduct

¶39

précisely the inaction of the applicant in taking appropriate steps to stop the illegal quarrying despite repeated request, the petitioner had conducted an investigation which culuminated in a report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, forwarded to the Government with recommendation for entrustment of enquiry. The Government under Section 12(4) of Act of 1984, passed order dated 03.02.2017 ( AnnexureA6 ) entrusting departmental enquiry to the petitioner. In pursuance of order of entrustment, Enquiry Officer issued Articles of Charge ( Annexure-A7 ). Aggrieved by the order of entrustment as well as Articles of Charge, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.2658/2017.

¶40

The main contention of the applicant urged before the Tribunal was the applicant belongs to Department of Mines and Geology, as such the Appointing Authority in his case, is the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46002-DB WP No. 29412 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Commerce and Industries, whereas the order of entrustment was issued by respondent No.1 i.e., Secretary to Government, Department of Water Resources (Minor Irrigation), as such it is without authority of law.

¶44

With this main objection, he had further asserted that he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2016. The Articles of Charge came to be issued on 01.03.2017 with respect to the incident alleged to the year 2012-2013, which is beyond four years, prior to issuance of Articles of Charge.

¶45

In the circumstances, the order of entrustment as well as Articles of Charge issued are hit by legal implications provided under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 (‘ KCSRs’ for short).

¶46

The Tribunal after considering the

¶47

contentions urged by both sides was of the opinion that the applicant was employed with second

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46002-DB WP No. 29412 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

respondent, therefore, the order of entrustment by respondent No.1 is without authority of law. That apart the Tribunal was of the opinion that Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, (‘ CCA Rule, 1957 ’ for short), is applicable to serving Government servants and not to the retired Government servants. Since, as on the date of issuance of Articles of Charge, the applicant was no more a Government servant, which is the date of commencement of enquiry i.e., 01.03.2017. As such entrustment under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is untenable in law.

¶51

Having opined so, the Tribunal allowed the application in part quashing the order of entrustment as well as issuance of Articles of Charges, with liberty to second respondent to take appropriate action, in view of enabling provisions under KCSRs. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by five years five months.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46002-DB WP No. 29412 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned

¶55

counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire writ papers.

¶56

On a query regarding the explanation for

¶57

the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by five years five months, Mr.Anthony unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly by five years five months. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by latches too. The doctrine of delay and latches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising power under Articles 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.

¶58

The petitioner is not an exception to the case when there is delay and latches in approaching the Court, than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. As

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46002-DB WP No. 29412 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the delay defeats all the rights. On scrutiny of the entire care 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 years five months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected.

¶62

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶64

RR

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Karnataka Lokayukta v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Sri Penchalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The Lokayukta Vs Sri Ramakanth R Kunte

Union of India Vs Atashi Mukherjee

Manager Vs Smt N R Rekha

The State of Karnataka Vs M Shashidhar

Appashi Dharmanna Gurav Vs Deputy Inspector General of Police