Disposed

The Registrar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026WA/1362/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by the Registrar, Lokayukta against quashing of a government order and articles of charge relating to an Institute employee's disciplinary proceedings. During the appeal, the Institute resolved to refer the case to the Lokayukta for departmental enquiry under Rule 14(A) of the CCA Rules; the appeal was accordingly disposed of without deciding merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26341-DB WA No. 1362 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.1362 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA

¶17

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR

¶20

KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU-560 029.

¶21

SRI K. MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. R. KRISHNAPPA

¶22

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:26341-DB WA No. 1362 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY BENGALURU-560 029.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI NARAYANA SWAMY T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGHUPATHI M.J., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶29

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15-12-2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.10209 OF 2016 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶35

This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.12.2021 in W.P.No.10209/2016.

¶36

The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner is

¶37

an employee of respondent No.4 - Institute and is governed by the regulations and by-laws of the Institute. It was further held that the appointing authority in relation to the writ petitioner is

¶38

the Board of Appointment of the Institute.

¶39

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26341-DB WA No. 1362 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Further, the learned Single Judge held that the

¶42

terms "Government" and "Government employee" contained in the CCA Rules should be read as "Institute" and "Institute employees" in the instant case. The learned Single Judge further held that orders of entrustment in respect of lent officers could not be passed by the State Government. On these grounds, the Government Order dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure-C), as well as the Articles of Charge dated 04.01.2026, were quashed.

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has placed an affidavit on record today, in continuation of the earlier affidavit filed on 06.04.2026. It is specifically stated therein as follows:

¶44

"8. It is submitted that under Office Order No. KMIO/PER/2/2026 dated 01.06.2026, after due consideration of the Lokayukta's investigation report and the entire material on record, the competent authority has resolved that the case of the 4th Respondent be referred to the Karnataka Lokayukta for conducting a departmental enquiry under Rule 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The following considerations weighed with the competent authority in arriving at the said decision:

¶45

(a) The allegations against the 4th Respondent arise out of the same set of transactions and events in respect of which disciplinary

¶46

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26341-DB WA No. 1362 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

proceedings and investigations against other delinquent officials are already being conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta;

¶49

(b) Conducting a parallel departmental enquiry at the institutional level would entail the risk of inconsistent appreciation of facts, non-uniform application of disciplinary standards, and conflicting findings on the identical subject matter outcomes contrary to the interests of justice and administrative fairness; and

¶50

(c) Referral of the 4th Respondent's case to the Karnataka Lokayukta would ensure a comprehensive, consistent, and uniform examination of the entire matter by a single competent authority, thereby serving the larger interests of justice.

¶51

9. It is submitted that in pursuance of Office Order No. KMIO/PER/2/2026 dated 01.06.2026, the competent authority of KMIO has directed that the case of the 4th Respondent, Shri K. Mohan Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, KMIO, Bengaluru, be referred to the "Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14(A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 for the purpose of conducting a departmental enquiry and ascertaining the veracity of the allegations of irregularities alleged to have been committed by him while he was serving in the Town Municipal Council, Dasarahalli (now BBMP).

¶52

10. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid Office Order No.KMIO/PER/2/2026 dated 01.06.2026, the statement in the earlier Affidavit dated 06.04.2026 to the effect that KMIO would itself conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the 4th Respondent stands superseded. KMIO shall act in strict accordance with Office Order No. KMIO/PER/2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 and shall extend all necessary cooperation for the conduct of the departmental enquiry through the Karnataka Lokayukta as directed by the competent authority."

¶53

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26341-DB WA No. 1362 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The supporting documents are also placed on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing in the matter that, in the light of the decision taken by respondent No.3 - Institute to entrust the matter to the Lokayukta for further action, no further orders are required in this Writ Appeal.

¶56

6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of . However,

¶57

it is made clear that we have not considered any questions of law arising on their merits.

¶58

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.

¶59

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

The Registrar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Registrar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Nataraja Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Parveen Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Sidharth P Vs Sri Prathap P

Mr Anees Ahmed Muffi Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Chandrababu. v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Lokesh M v Vs the State of Karnataka