The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 21.01.2020, setting aside the entrustment of departmental enquiry and the articles of charge against respondent Nos.3 and 4, suffers from infirmity warranting interference in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

No infirmity is found in the Tribunal's order dated 21.01.2020 (by which the entrustment of departmental enquiry and articles of charge were set aside, the Tribunal having held there was no dereliction of duty or misconduct, that remedies under the Act of 1984 and the KMC Act were more appropriate and efficacious, and that the Government failed to apply its mind while entrusting the enquiry), and therefore no interference is justified.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was filed after a lapse of about five years from the Tribunal's order, and the petitioner's counsel was unable to explain the delay to the satisfaction of the Court; the delay not having been explained in the manner required under law weighs against the petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, challenging the order dated 21.01.2020 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application Nos.7090 & 7091/2018 c/w Application No.7369/2018, whereby the Tribunal set aside the Government's order entrusting departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 and the articles of charge issued against two BBMP engineers (respondent Nos.3 and 4) following a Lokayukta report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The Tribunal had held that efficacious alternative remedies existed under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1984 and Section 321-B of the KMC Act, 1976; that action under Sections 321(1)-(3) and 462 KMC Act (demolition, stayed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1309 of 2017) was already taken; that there was no dereliction of duty or misconduct; and that the Lokayukta ought not to have entertained the complaint, the Government having failed to apply its mind. The Division Bench (per T.M.Nadaf J) found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order justifying interference and further observed that the petition, filed on 01.02.2025 after a lapse of about five years, suffered from unexplained delay. Petition dismissed as sans merit.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT PETITION NO.3232 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

THE REGISTRAR

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001

K P SHANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025

HC-KAR

S/O LATE K. C. PUTTEGOWDA, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KEMPEGOWDANAGARA SUB-DIVISION BBMP SHOPPING COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, J. C. ROAD, BENGALURU, R/A NO.99, 2^ND CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 086

SRI. N. S. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA, OCC ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION BBMP BENGALURU – 560 053 R/A NO.566, 4^TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 086

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/01/2020 BY THE HON’BLE KSAT IN APPLICATION NOS.7090 & 7091 OF 2018 CONNECTED WITH APPLICATION NO.7369/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

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

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the Karnataka Lokayukta, calling in question, the order dated 21.01.2020 in Application Nos.7090 & 7091/2018 c/w Application No.7369/2018, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’, for short), allowing the applications filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, setting aside the orders impugned.

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

A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the

present petition are as under:-

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025

HC-KAR

On certain allegations of dereliction of duty and misconduct on the part of the applicants, while they were working in the Sub-Division of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), as they have failed to take action with respect to a construction in violation of building bye-laws and sanctioned plan, the petitioner conducted an investigation in the matter and submitted its reports under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘Act of 1984’, for short). The Government subsequent to the report acting under Section 12(4) of the Act, 1984 passed an order entrusting the departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, (‘CCA Rules’, for short). An Enquiry Officer was appointed and he issued articles of charges against the applicants. The order of entrustment as well as issuance of Articles of Charge were the subject matter before the Tribunal in the applications.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025

HC-KAR

The Tribunal having heard the parties, was of the opinion that the applicants – respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, have taken action under Section 321(1), sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (‘KMC Act’, for short) culminating in passing of demolition order under Section 462 of the KMC Act in respect of the building which was being constructed in violation of bye-laws and sanctioned plan. Further, the materials produced before the Tribunal was taken into consideration wherein, there was an order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1309 of 2017, staying the order of demolition of the building.

The Tribunal having considered the material placed before it allowed the applications reasoning its order more particularly, in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13, holding that in the presence of alternative efficacious remedies available under Sections 8 and 9

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025

HC-KAR

of Act of 1984, the order impugned, as well as articles

of charges issued are not sustainable in law. Further taking into consideration of Section 321-B of KMC Act, which provides action against the erring officials. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the remedies provided under the KMC Act are more appropriate and efficacious and held that the Lokayukta ought not to have entertained the complaint. Accordingly, allowed the applications and set aside the order impugned by order dated 21.01.2020. It is this order, which is called in question in the present petition filed on 01.02.2025 i.e., almost 5 years from the date of order passed by the Tribunal.

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Sri.Joseph Anthony, with all vehemence submitted that the order of entrustment of enquiry is an impugned order and it is open for the applicants

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025

HC-KAR

to face the enquiry and put forward their defenses.

The allegations made are serious in nature. During the course of argument, to the query of the Court regarding unexplained delay for filing the petition after 5 years from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain the delay to the satisfaction of this Court.

The Tribunal having considered the entire

material on record has come to the conclusion that there is no dereliction of duty or misconduct as alleged against the applicants. That apart, there are other remedies available in the KMC Act which are more appropriate and efficacious. The challenge to the order of demolition issued against the alleged illegal constructions was pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and an interim order was granted against the order of demolition.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025

HC-KAR

Having considered the entire material before it, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner ought not to have entertained the complaint and the Government has failed to apply its mind to the material placed while entrusting the enquiry.

We find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal which justify interference. Added to these, the present petition is filed after lapse of 5 years and this delay has not been explained in the manner required under law. Under these circumstances, the petition sans merit is dismissed .

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

MH/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6