Dismissed¶65

The Lokayukta v. Sri Ramakanth R Kunte

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025WP/5457/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Karnataka Lokayukta against KAT order setting aside Government's Section 12(4) entrustment order (13.05.2019) and Articles of Charge (30.09.2019) under Rule 14-A CCA Rules following Section 12(3)/Section 9 Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 report; locus standi objection raised; Court agreed with Co-ordinate Bench in Karnataka Lokayukta v. Srinivas (WP 46893/2019); held Tribunal order set aside only entrustment, matter remains with Government; no infirmity; petition dismissed (HC-KAR, 06.11.2025, DB per T.M.Nadaf J).

What did the court decide?

What was ordered by the Tribunal was only the setting aside of the order of entrustment, which consequentially affected issuance of the Articles of Charge. ¶62

The Lokayukta Vs Sri Ramakanth R Kunte — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the Karnataka Lokayukta had locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order, given that the entrustment order had been set aside, the matter stood remitted to the Government, and the Government itself had not challenged the Tribunal's order (raised by respondent No.1's counsel; not expressly decided by the Court). +1 more

¶54

Ratio / Principle

What was ordered by the Tribunal was only the setting aside of the order of entrustment, which consequentially affected issuance of the Articles of Charge.

¶62

Key takeaways

The matter is still with the Government to take appropriate action after going through the report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984.ratio¶65
The Court is in agreement with the proposition of law taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar v. Srinivas (W.P.No.46893/2019 (S-KSAT)).ratio¶65
No infirmities were found in the order passed by the Tribunal requiring interference by this Court; accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka Lokayukta (petitioner) challenged the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order dated 24.03.2021 in Application No.5692/2019, whereby the Tribunal set aside the Government's order dated 13.05.2019 passed under Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 entrusting a departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to the Lokayukta (following the Lokayukta's Section 12(3) recommendation dated 08.04.2019 arising from investigation under Section 9), together with the consequential Articles of Charge dated 30.09.2019, and remitted the matter to the Government to reconsider the Section 12(3) report. The Division Bench (Per T.M.Nadaf J) held that the Tribunal's order merely set aside the entrustment, consequentially affecting the Articles of Charge, leaving the matter with the Government to act on the Section 12(3) report; agreeing with the Co-ordinate Bench in Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar v. Srinivas (W.P.No.46893/2019 (S-KSAT), dated 12.09.2024), the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

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

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.5457 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI RAMAKANTH R. KUNTE S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS WORKING AS ASST. DRUGS CONTROLLER (NOW RETIRED) BALIKASHRAMA ROAD, KANKANADI, MANGALORE – 575 001 R/AT NO. 6-33/2, 11^TH B CROSS, KODIKAL CROSS, MANGALORE – 575 006.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶20

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT. VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA, FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.5692/2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PREMILINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

The Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar is in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, calling in question the order

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

dated 24.03.2021 in Application No.5692/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), allowing the application, by setting aside the order impugned dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure-A6) and 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) 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

The applicant had served as Assistant Drugs Controller at Mysore Circle-1, Mysore from 10.06.2010 to 10.10.2013. A complaint is filed by one Sri.Snehamahi Krishna with the petitioner, alleging failure to discharge duties by one H.M.Kantharaju, Inspector of Police, Devaraja Police Station, registering criminal case against Pavan Distributors.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The complaint dated 28.05.2014 was forwarded by the Karnataka Lokayukta to the applicant for investigation. However, the applicant failed to take any action to cancel the license of the said distributor, even after the admission by the licensee before the Court.

¶39

The petitioner after receipt of the complaint took up investigation under Section 9 of Act of 1984 and comes to a conclusion that there is serious misconduct on the part of the applicant, recommended the Government under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 for further action on 08.04.2019.

¶40

The respondent No.2/Government upon report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 passed an order under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984 entrusting the proceedings under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) (‘CCA Rules’ for short).

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Pursuant to the entrustment, petitioner appointed an enquiry officer who issued Articles of Charge on 30.09.2019. The applicant replied to the Articles of Charge denying the same on 27.12.2019.

¶44

The applicant aggrieved by the order of entrustment and Articles of Charge in furtherance thereof, approached the Tribunal in Application No.5692/2020.

¶45

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties was of the opinion that there is no application of the mind by the Government while passing order under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, entrusting the enquiry with the petitioner under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, 1957. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the application, set aside the impugned order of entrustment dated 13.05.2019 ( Annexures-A6 ) as well as Articles of Charge dated 30.09.2019 ( AnnexureA10 ), but remitted the matter to the Government to consider the report under Section 12(3) dated

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

08.04.2019, in accordance with the provision of 12(4) of the Act of 1984 and pass appropriate order thereafter with other reliefs. It is this order, called in question in this petition by the Karnataka Lokayukta.

¶49

Heard Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.M.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent No.2.

¶50

Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, with all vehemence submits that the entrustment is just interim order by the Government entrusting the enquiry with the Lokayukta against the delinquent Government official for misconduct. The enquiry is yet to be conducted wherein the applicant would be given appropriate opportunity to defend his case. The Government independent of the report applied its mind while entrusting the matter under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules and the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect.

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

11. Refuting the submission of Sri.K Prasanna

¶54

Shetty, Sri.M.Nagarajan, submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the petition, as the order of entrustment has been set aside and the matter is remitted to the Government to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order thereafter. The entire report under 12(3) has not been out rightly set aside. It is still before the Government to consider. Since the Government has not called the same in question before this Court, the Lokayukta cannot maintain the petition, the reason being, the order of entrustment is set aside on the premise that there is no independent application of mind on the part of Government. It is for the Government to demonstrate application of mind while passing the order under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984. In these circumstances, it is not open for the petitioner to demonstrate application of mind by the Government, while passing order of entrustment. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the order passed by

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.46893/2019 (S-KSAT) in the case of Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar Vs. Srinivas and another, dated 12.09.2024 and stressed upon paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment and accordingly, sought to dismiss the petition.

¶59

Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA fairly

¶60

submits that Government neither has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal nor any order passed in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, in view of pendency of this petition.

¶61

Having heard the learned counsel we have gone through the Judgment relied upon by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in Srinivas supra .

¶62

What is ordered by the Tribunal is only setting aside the order of entrustment which consequentially affected issuance of Articles of

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Charge. The matter is still with the Government to take appropriate action, after going through report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984. We are in agreement with the proposition of law taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court cited supra. In these circumstances, we find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal, which requires any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the petition fails and dismissed .

¶66

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶67

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶68

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 24.03.2021 passed in Application No.5692/2019 by the Hon'ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (Annexure-B), allowing the applicant's application, setting aside the entrustment order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure-A6) and the Articles of Charge dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure-A10), and remitting the matter to the Government to consider the Section 12(3) report dated 08.04.2019 under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984.¶23
Hon'ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru · 24.03.2021
Prior proceeding
The applicant served as Assistant Drugs Controller at Mysore Circle-1, Mysore from 10.06.2010 to 10.10.2013.¶35
Prior proceeding
A complaint dated 28.05.2014 by Sri.Snehamahi Krishna alleging failure to discharge duties was forwarded by the Karnataka Lokayukta to the applicant for investigation.¶38
Prior proceeding
The Lokayukta investigated under Section 9 of the Act of 1984, concluded there was serious misconduct on the part of the applicant, and recommended further action to the Government under Section 12(3) on 08.04.2019.¶39
Prior proceeding
The Government passed an order under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984 entrusting the proceedings under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to the Lokayukta (entrustment order dated 13.05.2019, Annexure-A6).¶40
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the entrustment, an enquiry officer was appointed who issued Articles of Charge on 30.09.2019; the applicant replied denying the charges on 27.12.2019.¶43
Prior proceeding
The applicant, aggrieved by the order of entrustment and the Articles of Charge, approached the Tribunal in Application No.5692/2020 (number as printed in the body; cause title prints 5692/2019).¶44
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal allowed the application, holding there was no application of mind by the Government while passing the Section 12(4) entrustment order; it set aside the entrustment order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure-A6) and the Articles of Charge dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure-A10), and remitted the matter to the Government to consider the Section 12(3) report dated 08.04.2019 under Section 12(4) and pass appropriate orders.¶45

The Lokayukta v. Sri Ramakanth R Kunte

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Lokayukta v. Sri Ramakanth R Kunte

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karigowda Vs Shankar C K

The State of Karnataka Vs Mahesh B

Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P a Makhadoom Vs the Director General and

Union of India Vs Atashi Mukherjee

Sri Penchalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka