Dismissed¶61

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Mr Shakir Razak

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/5615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Staleness of departmental/disciplinary proceedings — writ petition by Karnataka Lokayukta against KSAT order quashing entrustment of enquiry (18.07.2016) and common articles of charge (04.11.2016) for 2005 incident on complaint of 31.10.2007, charges issued in 2016 after 11-year unexplained delay; delay in issuance of charge sheet and its consequences on further proceedings; Articles 226 & 227; certiorari against Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, Application No.2519/2017; Assistant Executive Engineer / Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Bidar; WP No.5615 of 2024 (S-KSAT); petition dismissed on 09.10.2025 (per T.M. Nadaf, J.).

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal which require interference at its hands. ¶59

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Mr Shakir Razak — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 15.07.2019 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.2519/2017, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 came to be allowed setting aside the orders impugned therein (order of entrustment of enquiry dated 18.07.2016 and common articles of charge dated 04.11.2016), is liable to be interfered with / quashed by this Court. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal which require interference at its hands.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

The charge sheet and articles of charge were issued in 2016 for an incident alleged to be of the year 2005, without explaining the unreasonable delay, and this has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶60

Key takeaways

The delay in issuance of the charge sheet has consequences on further proceedings; the learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to explain the delay (in issuance of the charge sheet and in filing the petition) to the satisfaction of the Court.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (B M Shyam Prasad and T.M. Nadaf, JJ.; oral order per T.M. Nadaf, J.) of the High Court of Karnataka, by order dated 09.10.2025, dismissed Writ Petition No.5615 of 2024 (S-KSAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Karnataka Lokayukta and its Assistant Registrar of Enquiries, challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 15.07.2019 in Application No.2519/2017. The Tribunal had quashed the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 18.07.2016 and the common articles of charge dated 04.11.2016 issued against respondent No.1 (Assistant Engineer-II, Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Bidar) on the ground of an inordinate, prolonged and unexplained delay of 11 years — the incident being of 2005 (23-day in-charge period, 04.06.2005 to 27.06.2005), the complaint dated 31.10.2007 by Sri.Shivaraj, and the articles of charge issued only in 2016. Holding that the delay in issuance of a charge sheet bears upon further proceedings, that the petitioners' counsel could not explain the delay (nor the five-year delay in filing the petition), and that the Tribunal's consideration of the unreasonable delay was right, the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, held the petition sans merits and dismissed it.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39958-DB WP No. 5615 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.5615 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶12

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MR. SHAKIR RAZAK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SAYED SHABIR RAZAK, ASSISTANT ENGINEER - II, PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, BIDAR – 585 401 R/AT 4-1-150, NOOR KHAN TALIM,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:39958-DB WP No. 5615 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NEAR MUSLIM CHOWK, BIDAR, BIDAR DISTRICT – 585 401

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 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 15/07/2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.2519/2017, AS PER ANNEXURE-A; b) AWARD THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION AND c) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39958-DB WP No. 5615 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Karnataka Lokayukta, calling in question, the order dated 15.07.2019 in Application No. 2519/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’, for short), whereby, the application filed by the respondent No.1 herein came to be allowed setting aside the orders impugned therein.

¶34

The parties are referred to as per their

¶35

rankings before the Tribunal.

¶36

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

¶37

The applicant was placed in-charge of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39958-DB WP No. 5615 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Engineering Sub-Division Bidar only for a period of 23 days, i.e., from 04.06.2005 to 27.06.2005. A complaint came to be filed against the applicant in the year 2007 i.e. on 31.10.2007 by one Sri.Shivaraj in respect of allegations pertaining to the event occurred in the year 2005. Thereafter, the articles of charge came to be issued in the year 2016 i.e. after prolonged and unexplained delay of 11 years. The applicant calling in question the order of entrustment as well as issuance of articles of charge, approached the Tribunal in the present application, under consideration in this petition.

¶41

The Tribunal considering the entire material placed before it, came to an irresistible conclusion that since there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 11 years in issuance of articles of charge for the incident in respect of allegations alleged to have been taken place in the year 2005 on the basis of the complaint filed in 2007, allowed the application

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39958-DB WP No. 5615 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

quashing the order of entrustment dated 18.07.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 and the common articles of charge dated 04.11.2016 issued by respondent No.4 therein. The order came to be passed on 15.07.2019 by the Tribunal. It is this order, which is called in question in the present petition by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the application.

¶45

Heard Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy K.S., learned

¶46

counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Vikas Rajipura, learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶47

Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy K.S. submits that the

¶48

order of entrustment of enquiry is an impugned order and it is open for the applicant to face the enquiry and put forward his defences. The allegations are serious in nature. The time consumed for issuance of articles of charge cannot be taken as a ground to exonerate the applicants from the charges without conducting enquiry to establish the charges framed.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39958-DB WP No. 5615 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

During the course of the argument to the

¶52

query of the Court, regarding unexplained delay for issuance of charge sheet for the incident alleged to have been taken place in the year 2005 and issuance of article of charges in the year 2016 as well as filing the petition after 5 years from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to explain the delay to the satisfaction of this Court. The delay in issuance of charge sheet has got all the consequences on further proceeding.

¶53

The Tribunal having considered the entire

¶54

material has come to a conclusion that there is an inordinate, prolonged unexplained delay of 11 years. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was of the opinion that if the respondent authorities are permitted to hold the enquiry, even in the enquiry proceedings also, they have to explain this 11 years delay and no purpose will be served in the enquiry insofar as the

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39958-DB WP No. 5615 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

applicant is concerned. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application and

¶58

set aside the order impugned in the application.

¶59

We find no infirmities in the order passed by

¶60

the Tribunal, which requires an interference at the hands of this Court, for the reason that, the incident alleged in the complaint is of the year 2005 and the charge sheet and the articles of charge were issued in 2016, without explaining the unreasonable delay, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the petition sans merits and

¶61

accordingly, dismissed .

¶62

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶64

MH/-

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Mr Shakir Razak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Mr Shakir Razak

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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Informatica Llc

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Altair Engineering Inc.

Shivamadaiah M Vs the Director General

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs H K Thppeswamy

Sri.Prashant Kumar G Vs the Union of India

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka