Dismissed¶73

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/7418/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay in initiating departmental enquiry; unexplained 9-year delay in entrustment order; Rule 14-A CCA Rules / KCSR; Section 12(3) Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984; Section 321(1) KMC Act, 1976; KSAT Application No.7580/2019; Articles 226 and 227; delay/laches in filing writ petition under Article 226; Karnataka Lokayukta v. State of Karnataka; Executive Engineer, State Highways Development Project, deputed to BBMP; additional charge of Rajajinagar Sub-Division for 14 days; W.P.No.5615/2024 relied upon; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order setting aside the entrustment order dated 27.08.2016 and declined to interfere, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the 9-year delay in entrustment was not properly explained. ¶73

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order dated 03.02.2020 in Application No.7580/2019, setting aside the entrustment order dated 27.08.2016 on the ground that the 9-year delay in entrusting the departmental enquiry was not properly explained, calls for interference by the High Court. +1 more

¶73

Court's answer

¶73

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the Court in explaining the 9-year delay in entrustment or the delay in filing the petition; the Court treated the matter as identically placed with its earlier view in W.P.No.5615/2024, where there was an 11-year delay in issuance of articles of charge and a 5-year delay in filing the petition.

¶71

Key takeaways

The writ petition, being sans merits, was dismissed.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (B M Shyam Prasad and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.; oral order by T.M.Nadaf, J.) dismissed the Karnataka Lokayukta's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 03.02.2020 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.7580/2019, whereby the Tribunal had set aside the order dated 27.08.2016 entrusting a departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 against respondent No.2, an Executive Engineer, for alleged dereliction of duty in supervising construction during his 14-day additional charge (20.05.2008 to 05.06.2008) of Rajajinagar Sub-Division, BBMP. The Tribunal had found a 9-year delay in entrustment unexplained. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order; counsel for the Lokayukta could not explain either the 9-year delay in entrustment or the delay of more than 4 years in filing the petition (Tribunal order dated 03.02.2020; petition filed 05.03.2024), and the Court followed its earlier view in W.P.No.5615/2024 involving identical delays. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 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 AND

¶8

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

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.7418 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MS BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

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

¶17

SRI. L. SRIDHARA MURTHY S/O T LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, STATE HIGHWAYS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

RESIDING AT NO.69, NGEF LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 056

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS, INLAND, WATER TRANSPORT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R1 & R3)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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 03/02/2020 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7580/2019 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.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS 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:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by the Karnataka Lokayukta calling in question, the order dated 03.02.2020 in Application No.7580/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’, for short), whereby, the application filed by the respondent No.2 herein came to be allowed quashing the order impugned therein dated 27.08.2016 vide Annexure – A6 passed by respondent No.2 therein insofar as the applicant is concerned.

¶33

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

¶34

Brief factual matrix leading to filing of the present petition are as under:-

¶35

The applicant was working as an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, State High

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Ways Development Project, K.R.Circle, Bengaluru. He was deputed to the service of BBMP for a period of

¶39

2 years by order dated 31.08.2007. When the applicant was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Ram Mandira Sub-Division of BBMP, he was given additional charge of Rajajinagar SubDivision from 20.05.2008 to 05.06.2008 i.e., for a period of 14 days. A complaint came to be filed by one Sri.Chikkabyraiah on 20.12.2011 making allegations that his neighbour one Sri.V.G.Hariprasad has got sanction of plan bearing LP No.JC/W/SP/LP/1018/07-08 dated 27.08.2007 pertaining to the property bearing No.1/1-1, 8^th ‘A’ Main, Shivanagar, Bengaluru, which comes under Ward No.107 and has violated the sanction plan. The complaint was given in 2011, by the time, the construction was over. An enquiry came to be initiated by the Assistant Executive Engineer-1, (AEE-1) Technical Wing of petitioner herein and he submitted his report on 08.02.2012 (Annexure – A4).

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

It is germane to mention that earlier to submission of

¶43

the report, so also the complaint on the basis of which the preliminary enquiry was ordered, a provisional order came to be passed by the competent authority under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, ‘KMC Act, 1976’). The provisional order came to be passed on 19.12.2011 which is earlier to the complaint filed by Sri.Chikkabyraiah stated supra . The provisional order passed against Sri.V.G.Hariprasad was called

¶44

in question in Appeal No.757/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and an interim order was granted against the same. The plan was sanctioned on 27.08.2007. By the time, the complaint was lodged, the construction of entire building was completed, as evident from the provisional order. However, on the basis of the report submitted by the AEE-1, the petitioner forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘Act, 1984’, for short), to the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Government. Same was called in question in W.P.No.26033/2017. This Court, prima facie finding materials in the writ petition granted interim order of stay in respect of proceedings before the petitioner herein. Thereafter, this Court relegated the applicant to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the petition on the ground of jurisdiction. The respondent – State on the report of the petitioner under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1984, passed an order dated 27.08.2016, entrusting the departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1957, (CCA Rules), ( ‘KCSR’, for short). Aggrieved by the entrustment order supra , the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.7580/2019.

¶48

Upon issuance of notice, the State as well as

¶49

the petitioner herein orally objected to the application taking main contention that the application itself is

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

not maintainable either in law or on facts as it is just

¶53

an order of entrustment and the same requires to be considered by issuance of articles of charge wherein, the applicant would be provided an opportunity to put forth his stand.

¶54

The Tribunal having heard the parties before

¶55

it as well as on perusal of the materials placed, was of the opinion that the materials clearly show that the incident of illegal construction had been taken place long back, by the time, the complaint was filed and looking to the date of issuance of order of entrustment, there is totally 9 years delay in the matter further was of the opinion that the said 9

¶56

years delay was not properly explained by the respondent authorities. That apart, the Tribunal was of the view that the applicant was holding additional charge of Rajajinagar Sub-division and he had worked there only for a period of 14 days from 20.05.2008 to 05.06.2008 and he has explained the

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

same in his reply to the notice issued by the petitioner herein. The Tribunal having considered all the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that the enormous delay of 9 years is not properly explained and finding that the applicant has made out the case, allowed the application setting aside the order impugned dated 27.08.2016 i.e., order of entrustment at Annexure A6 issued by the respondent No.2, therein insofar as the applicant is concerned. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in the present writ petition.

¶60

The order is passed by the Tribunal on 03.02.2020 whereas, the petition is filed on 05.03.2024 i.e., after delay of more than 4 years.

¶61

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel

¶62

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Sri.Joseph Anthony, with all vehemence

¶66

submitted that, the delay in entrustment as well as issuance of articles of charge will not take away the entire case, when there is a serious allegation of dereliction of duty, which the applicant was duty bound under law to supervise the construction in order to see that whether there is any violation in the sanction plan. Since the said duty was not exercised properly in the manner known to law by the applicant and other concerned officials, the same amounts to serious dereliction of duty and the same requires an enquiry to quest the truth against the applicant.

¶67

However, to the query of this Court

¶68

regarding the delay of 9 years in entrusting the matter from the date of violation as well as the delay in filing the petition, the learned counsel is not in a position to satisfy the Court in explaining properly the delay caused. This Court has already taken a view in W.P.No.5615/2024 by the same petitioner

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39957-DB WP No. 7418 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

wherein, there is a delay of 11 years in issuance of articles of charge and also 5 years delay in filing the petition. This matter is also identically same in respect of delay in issuance of articles of charge as well as order of entrustment and filing of petition calling the order of the Tribunal.

¶72

This Court having gone through the entire

¶73

order passed by the Tribunal, comes to an irresistible conclusion that there is no infirmities found in the order passed by the Tribunal which calls for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merits and resultantly

¶74

dismissed .

¶75

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶76

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶77

MH/-

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 03.02.2020 in Application No.7580/2019, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application of respondent No.2 (applicant before the Tribunal) and quashed/set aside the entrustment order dated 27.08.2016 (Annexure-A6) insofar as the applicant is concerned.¶32
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru · 03.02.2020
Prior proceeding
The applicant, an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department (State Highways Development Project), was deputed to BBMP for 2 years by order dated 31.08.2007; while working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Ram Mandira Sub-Division of BBMP, he held additional charge of Rajajinagar Sub-Division only from 20.05.2008 to 05.06.2008 (14 days).¶39
Prior proceeding
Complaint filed by one Sri.Chikkabyraiah on 20.12.2011 alleging that Sri.V.G.Hariprasad violated sanction plan LP No.JC/W/SP/LP/1018/07-08 dated 27.08.2007 for property No.1/1-1, 8th 'A' Main, Shivanagar, Ward No.107, Bengaluru; by then construction was complete.¶39
Prior proceeding
Preliminary enquiry initiated by the Assistant Executive Engineer-1 (AEE-1), Technical Wing of the Lokayukta, which submitted its report on 08.02.2012 (Annexure-A4).¶39
Prior proceeding
A provisional order under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act, 1976 was passed by the competent authority against Sri.V.G.Hariprasad on 19.12.2011, i.e., even before the complaint of 20.12.2011.¶43
Prior proceeding
The provisional order was challenged in Appeal No.757/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which granted an interim order against it.¶44
Prior proceeding
On the AEE-1 report, the Lokayukta forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Government.¶44
Prior proceeding
The Lokayukta's report was called in question in W.P.No.26033/2017; the High Court granted interim stay of the Lokayukta proceedings, then relegated the applicant to the Tribunal and dismissed the petition on the ground of jurisdiction.¶47
Prior proceeding
On the Lokayukta's report under Section 12(3), the State passed an order dated 27.08.2016 entrusting a departmental enquiry against the applicant under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957.¶47
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the entrustment order, the applicant approached the Tribunal in Application No.7580/2019; the State and the Lokayukta orally objected that the application was not maintainable since it was merely an order of entrustment, to be tested through articles of charge.¶53
Prior proceeding
By order dated 03.02.2020, the Tribunal found the 9-year delay in entrustment unexplained and that the applicant had held additional charge of Rajajinagar Sub-Division for only 14 days, and allowed the application setting aside the entrustment order dated 27.08.2016 insofar as the applicant is concerned.¶59

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

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

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

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Mr Shakir Razak