Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri Siddananjaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri Siddananjaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the Tribunal's order quashing the order of Entrustment dated 28.06.2019 and the Articles of Charge dated 19.06.2020 stands undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of Entrustment dated 28.06.2019 and the Articles of Charge dated 19.06.2020 issued against the first respondent, who retired on 30.09.2015, were barred by the statutory limitation under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs. +1 more

Court's answer

The order of Entrustment dated 28.06.2019, culminating in the issuance of the charge memo on 19.06.2020, is hopelessly time barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs, the first respondent having retired on 30.09.2015 while the incident relates to the year 2010 and the complaint was lodged in the year 2014.

Ratio / Principle

Finding no infirmity in the Tribunal's order in view of the statutory bar under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs, the Court held that the Tribunal's order does not call for any interference and that the writ petition is sans merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: B M Shyam Prasad and T.M.Nadaf JJ.; oral order per T.M.Nadaf J.), 16.10.2025 — Service law — Departmental enquiry against retired officer — Limitation — Rule 214(2)(b)(ii), Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957. On a complaint dated 16.12.2014 alleging irregularities in mining activities, the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984; the Government, acting under Section 12(4) of the Act, by order dated 28.06.2019 entrusted a departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, 1957 to the Lokayukta, which issued Articles of Charge dated 19.06.2020 to a Deputy Director of Mines and Geology who had retired on 30.09.2015, the underlying incident being of 2010. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 31.08.2020 in Application No.3009/2020, held the entrustment and the Articles of Charge barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) KCSRs and quashed them. Held, dismissing the Lokayukta's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution: the entrustment and the charge memo were hopelessly time barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) KCSRs; the Tribunal's order suffered from no infirmity and called for no interference.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41544-DB WP No. 7426 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^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.7426 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

M.S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES - 10 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING , BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

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

AND:

SRI SIDDANANJAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RETIRED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY, TUMKURU R/A NO. 48, ANJANADRI NILAYA, NEAR RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAMA, AMARJYOTHI NAGAR, TUMKURU – 572 105

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41544-DB WP No. 7426 of 2024

HC-KAR

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001

…RESPONDENTS

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

THIS WRIT PETITION 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 31.08.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No. 3009/2020, 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.

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

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41544-DB WP No. 7426 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

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

This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by Karnataka Lokayukta, calling in question the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in Application No.3009/2020.

The petition involves a short point concerning Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules,1957 (for short ' the KCSRs '). With this, we now proceed to narrate the brief facts relevant to the filing of this petition.

A complaint dated 16.12.2014 came to be filed with the petitioner by one Sri.Rangaswamaiah, alleging certain irregularities in mining activities, against the first respondent. The Respondent No.1, who worked as Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, retired on 30.09.2015. He was posted as such in Tumakuru, during July 2012 to September 2015.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41544-DB WP No. 7426 of 2024

HC-KAR

On the complaint, the petitioner initiated the proceedings, which culminated into a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ( for short 'the Act, 1984' ). The report was forwarded with recommendation for entrustment of Departmental Enquiry. The Government on the said report acting under Section 12(4) of the Act, 1984, vide order dated 28.06.2019, entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ( ‘CCA Rules, 1957’ for short). Accordingly, on 19.06.2020, a charge memo was issued against the first respondent.

It is germane to mention that based on the very same set of allegations, earlier complaints were filed before the Upa-Lokayukta. One such complaint was closed on 12.07.2019 (Annexure A3), and another complaint from 2016 was closed on 22.01.2020. However, in the present matter, the report was forwarded, culminating in the order of Entrustment stated supra.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41544-DB WP No. 7426 of 2024

HC-KAR

The respondent No.1 filed an application in application No.3009/2020 (present application) calling in question the order of entrustment dated 28.06.2019 passed by respondent No.2 so also the Articles of Charge dated 19.06.2020 issued by the petitioner, on the ground of a statutory bar envisaged under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs.

Upon accepting the notice, the petitioner as well as the second respondent/Government filed their separate statements of objection. The Tribunal, after perusal of the entire material, found that the allegations in the complaint pertained to an incident which had taken place in 2010, whereas the complaint came to be filed in 2014 and the first respondent had retired on 30.09.2015 upon attaining superannuation. The Tribunal having regard to the timeline viz., the incident, filing of complaint and the subsequent events of retirement, Entrustment order resulting in issuance of Articles of Charge held that the order of Entrustment dated 28.06.2019, issued by the first

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41544-DB WP No. 7426 of 2024

HC-KAR

respondent and the Articles of Charge dated 19.06.2020, issued by the petitioner/institution were barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the KCSRs.

Holding as above, the Tribunal allowed the application and quashed the impugned order of Entrustment and subsequent Articles of charge. It is this order of the Tribunal, that is called in question after nearly four years, in the present writ petition.

The factual aspects stated above are not in dispute. Respondent No.1 retired on 30.09.2015. The incident relates to the year 2010. Complaint is lodged in the year 2014. The order of Entrustment dated 28.06.2019, culminating in the issuance of the charge memo on 19.06.2020, is hopelessly time barred under Rule 214(2)(ii)(b) of the KCSRs.

Though Sri.K.S.Mallikarjun Reddy, tried to

support the order of Entrustment, we find no infirmities in

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41544-DB WP No. 7426 of 2024

HC-KAR

the order passed by the Tribunal in view of the statutory bar

under the Rule stated supra.

In light of the above, the Tribunal’s order does

not call for, any interference at the hands of this Court. The

writ petition is sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TIN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10