Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. K B THARANATH, S/O D BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE AEE, VASANTH NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBM, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU, R/AT D.NO.41, 5^th CROSS, 9^th MAIN, SREERAM PURAM, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1.ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/11/2019, BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN APPLICATION NO.4145/2018 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶26

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:46451-DB WP No. 29488 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

The third respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar is in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, in Application No.4145/2018 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), calling in question the order dated 25.11.2019. The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the order impugned dated 21.03.2018 ( Annexure-A17 ) passed by the second respondent with further directions in a time-bound manner.

¶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

The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Engineer under Public Works, Ports and Inland Water Transport Department. At the time of filing the application, he was working as Assistant Engineer, at the Office of Assistant

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46451-DB WP No. 29488 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Executive Engineer, Vasanth Nagar Sub-Division, BBMP, Shivajanagar, Bengaluru.

¶39

A complaint was lodged by one Shivananda, a resident of Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru to the Assistant Executive Engineer on 25.04.2012, requesting to take action against the illegal construction in respect of Site No.213 by one Chandrasekharaiah. As no action has been taken, the said Sivananda filed a complaint to the Commissioner of BBMP on 25.04.2012. Thereafter, an inspection of the construction was conducted. The applicant found that there is deviation from the plan which amounts to violation of Rules of Building Plans directed the owner of the property to remove the illegal portion of the construction and to submit explanation within 7 days, failing which order will be confirmed under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('KMC Act, 1976' for short). Since no action at the end of the owner of the property has been taken in terms of the provisional order, a notice taking action under Section 462 of the KMC Act, 1976 for violation comes to be issued under Section 321 (1), (2) and (3) of KMC

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46451-DB WP No. 29488 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Act, 1976. The owner of the building approached the Appellate Tribunal in Application No.954/2012 against the order passed by the authorities under the provisions of KMC Act, 1976 and also this Court in W.P.No.32123/2012.

¶43

Alleging the dereliction of duty of misconduct, the said Shivananda was before the third respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta. The third respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta after issuance of intimation to the applicant and upon receipt of his explanation by a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 recommended the Government for entrusting enquiry. The second respondent-Government upon receipt of the report entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short) to third respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta.

¶44

Subsequent to the order of entrustment, Articles of charge along with notice have been issued against the applicant calling upon him to submit his reply. The applicant submitted his reply to the notice and Articles of

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46451-DB WP No. 29488 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

charge. The enquiry officer not satisfied with the reply proceeded to hold the enquiry and ultimately submitted the report holding that the charge levelled against the applicant has been proved. The enquiry report has been forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent along with recommendation. The first respondent upon receipt of report as well as recommendation, issued a second show cause notice on the applicant annexing the enquiry report. The applicant submitted his reply to the second show cause notice, denying the enquiry report and sought to drop the proceedings.

¶48

The first respondent-Government upon

¶49

considering the reply to the second show cause notice as well as the report and recommendation passed the order of imposing penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order of penalty, the applicant was before the Tribunal.

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46451-DB WP No. 29488 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The first respondent-Government as well as second respondent and third respondent-Karnataka

¶53

Lokayukta appeared and filed their statement of objections, denying the relief sought in the application contending that the actions of applicant amount to dereliction of duty and misconduct.

¶54

The Tribunal after considering the rival

¶55

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties found that there is neither misconduct nor dereliction of duty attributable to the applicant in discharging his duties in terms of provisions contained under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('KMC Act, 1976' for short) and having held so proceeded to allow the application and set aside the order impugned in the application. Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent-Government to pay the consequential benefits including monetary benefits to the applicant within a time bound manner, by its order dated 25.11.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal which is called in question belatedly by four years one month by the third respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46451-DB WP No. 29488 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel

¶59

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶60

On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years one month, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by laches too. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising the power under Article 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.

¶61

The petitioner is not an exception to the case, when there is delay and laches in approaching the Court, than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46451-DB WP No. 29488 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

hazard and causes injury to the lis as the delay defeats all the rights. On scrutiny of the entire case 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.

¶65

The unexplained delay of four years one month is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected .

¶66

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶67

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶68

RR

¶69

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

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 Chethan Naik B T Vs Smt Roja T N

Smt Jyothi v S Vs Manager

Sri Girish K C Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj B

Sri. Srinivas. T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka