Dismissed¶42

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026WP/16430/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court DB (S.G. Pandit & Dr. K. Manmadha Rao) rejects Lokayukta writ petition (WP 16430/2021, S-KSAT) against KSAT order dt. 01.07.2019 in Application No.8608/2018 quashing entrustment of enquiry dt. 28.09.2018 and Articles of Charge dt. 03.11.2018 against retired officer Smt. Divya Narayanappa; charge memo dt. 30.11.2018 post-retirement (30.09.2018), charges relate to 2008 and 2011; held barred by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) KCSRs, consistent with dismissal of State's W.P. No. 10254/2021 (dt. 21.06.2021). Keywords: disciplinary proceedings after retirement; KCSRs Rule 214(2)(b)(ii); Lokayukta enquiry; Bal Bhavan Society.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was rejected. ¶42

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26831-DB WP No. 16430 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 16430 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶16

SMT. DIVYA NARAYANAPPA W/O M K AMARANTH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED IN THE BETTER OF JOIN DIRECTOR, WHILE WORKING AS SECRETARY OF BAL BHAVAN SOCIETY UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, BENGALURU- 560001, R/AT NO.315/C, 9^TH A MAIN,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26831-DB WP No. 16430 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

40^TH CROSS, V BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560041.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 SRI SREEDHAR G BIDRE, ADV. FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.8608/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶27

The petitioner/Karnataka Lokayukta is before this

¶28

Court, questioning the order dated 01.07.2019 in Application No.8608/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), allowing the application of respondent No.2 by setting aside the order of entrustment of enquiry dated

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26831-DB WP No. 16430 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

28.09.2018 as well as Articles of Charge dated

¶32

03.11.2018.

¶33

Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty for petitioner, Sri.Harisha A.S., learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Sreedhar G Bidre for Sri.Raghavendra G Gayathri, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶34

At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.2 brings to the notice of this Court that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was the subject matter of W.P.No.10254/2021 by the first respondent-State Government. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 21.06.2021 dismissed the writ petition holding that the charge memo dated 30.11.2018 is hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. Thus, he would submit that on the same ground, the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26831-DB WP No. 16430 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Prasanna

¶38

Shetty is not in a position to dispute the said position though he tried to dispute that Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs would not come to the aid of the second respondent herein.

¶39

It is noticed that the second respondent retired from

¶40

service on 30.09.2018. The charge sheet is dated 30.11.2018 and the charge relates to the years 2008 and 2011, as could be found from imputation of charge at page 194 of the pleadings.

¶41

In the above circumstances, we are also of the view

¶42

that the charge memo would hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected .

¶43

SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶44

SD/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶45

MPK CT:bms

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Income Tax Officer Vs Smt. Praveena Kumari

Sri. Shashidhar M Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B N Nataraja, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ambika, Vs the State of Karnataka