Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WIRT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.02.2020 IN APPLICATION BEARING No.1870/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AS ISSUED BY THE KSAT.

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

The Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar, in Application No.1870/2017, before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question order dated 08.08.2019. The Tribunal by order stated supra allowed the application and set aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2016, issued by second respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ( Annexure-A5 )

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46454-DB WP No. 8146 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

and impugned order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the first respondent ( Annexure-A6 ), entrusting departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short).

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

The applicant joined the Agriculture Department and while he was working as a Joint Director of Agriculture, he was deputed to Watershed Development Officer, Dharwad. He retired from service on 31.07.2013, on attaining superannuation.

¶35

One Sri.Gangadharagouda.S.Patil, resident of Goudara Oni, Devanur, Kundagola Taluk, Dharwad District, has filed a complaint dated 09.07.2013 before the Karnataka

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:46454-DB WP No. 8146 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Lokayukta, Bengaluru against the applicant making certain allegations of misappropriation.

¶40

Upon complaint the Technical Wing of Karnataka Lokayukta was directed to conduct an enquiry and to submit report. The enquiry officer/technical wing subsequent to the enquiry, filed its report, holding that during the financial year 2008-09, though the amount was spent, but no vouchers or bills are produced and there are no documents for payment of amount with respect to the works undertaken during the said period. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the Karnataka Lokayukta forwarded its report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the first respondent-Government. Upon receipt of the report, the first respondent-Government passed an order entrusting the enquiry with the second respondentKarnataka Lokayukta. The applicant aggrieved by the report under Section 12(3) dated 18.08.2016 and the order of entrustment by first respondent-Government dated 02.01.2017 was before the Tribunal in Application No.1870/2017.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46454-DB WP No. 8146 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Upon acceptance of notice, both the respondent-State

¶44

as well as Karnataka Lokayukta opposed the application.

¶45

The Tribunal upon consideration of material placed on record and the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, held that the enquiry now contemplated against the applicant is hit by Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 ('KCSRs' for short), as the applicant has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and the incident alleged is prior to four years from the date of retirement. Having held so proceeded to allow the application and set aside the report as well as the order of entrustment so far as the same relates to the applicant by its order dated 08.08.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal that is called in question by the second respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta, belatedly by three years eight months.

¶46

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for first respondent and

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:46454-DB WP No. 8146 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Sri.Praveen Kumar N.K, learned counsel for respondent

¶51

No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶52

On a query regarding the explanation for the

¶53

delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by laches too. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 is called upon to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶54

The petitioner is not an exception to the case, when there is delay and laches in approaching the Court, than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis as the delay defeats all the rights. On scrutiny of the entire case papers, we find no

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46454-DB WP No. 8146 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

reason to condone the enormous delay. This Court, if it ignores the obvious and enormous delay, will foster injustice, as it is likely to affect others. A finality attained cannot be permitted to be reopened if there is unreasonable lapse of time. The unexplained delay of three years eight months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected .

¶58

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶59

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶60

RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Karnataka Lokayukta v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayukta v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Chethan Naik B T Vs Smt Roja T N

Smt Jyothi v S Vs Manager

Sri Girish K C Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj B

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivas. T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka