Dismissed¶¶70

Sri K S Satheshwara Raju @ Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/20519/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim stay of Lokayukta departmental enquiry refused; writ petitions under Articles 226/227 against KSAT refusal of interim order dismissed. Keywords: Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal; Karnataka Lokayukta; entrustment of enquiry; articles of charge No.UPLOK2/DE/208/2025/ARE-8; order No.KAME 123 ADE 2025 dated 15.11.2025; Revenue Inspector, Kolar; First Division Assistant, Kolar; prima facie case for stay; premature/interlocutory stage; factual aspect; contentions left open. Neutral citation: NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB. Decided 08.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners have not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim stay as sought, and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the interim prayers. ¶¶64

Sri K S Satheshwara Raju @ Raju Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners made out a prima facie case for grant of interim stay of the departmental enquiry (entrustment order and articles of charge), so as to warrant interference with the Tribunal's refusal of interim order. +1 more

¶¶64

Court's answer

The petitioners have not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim stay as sought, and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the interim prayers.

¶¶64

Ratio / Principle

If the grounds raised by the petitioners were considered at this interlocutory stage, nothing would remain for consideration by the Tribunal at the time of disposal; the contentions are therefore to be examined in the application pending before the Tribunal.

¶¶64

Key takeaways

Whether the petitioners worked in the said office at the relevant point of time is a factual aspect which cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage.ratio¶¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (oral order per S.G. Pandit J.; Coram: S.G. Pandit and Dr. K. Manmadha Rao JJ.), High Court of Karnataka, dismissed two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by a Revenue Inspector (WP No.20519/2026) and a First Division Assistant (WP No.20530/2026) seeking certiorari against orders of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 11.06.2026 (Application No.2129/2026) and 22.04.2026 (Application No.2347/2026) refusing interim stay of a departmental enquiry entrusted to the Karnataka Lokayukta and of articles of charge (underlying order No.KAME 123 ADE 2025 dated 15.11.2025 of the Department of Revenue; articles of charge No.UPLOK2/DE/208/2025/ARE-8 dated 26.02.2026 issued by the Enquiry Officer). Held: the petitioners had not made out a prima facie case for interim stay and the Tribunal rightly rejected the interim prayers; if their grounds were considered at that stage nothing would remain for the Tribunal to consider at the time of disposal; whether the petitioners worked in the said office at the relevant point of time is a factual aspect which cannot be gone into by the writ court at that stage. Writ petitions dismissed; all contentions of the parties left open.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB WP No. 20519 of 2026 C/W WP No. 20530 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 20519 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 20530 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶10

IN WP No.20519/2026

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. K.S. SATHESHWARA RAJU @ RAJU S/O Y.SUNDAR RAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR, TAYALUR HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. RESIDING AT DOOR NO.87, 7^TH CROSS, PALASANDRA LAYOUT, KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB WP No. 20519 of 2026 C/W WP No. 20530 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶21

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-8 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY,AGA)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2129/2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A WHERE IN INTERIM ORDER IS REFUSED AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT INTERIM ORDER STAY IN APPLICATION NO.2129/2026 STAYING THE ORDER BEARING NO.KAME 123 ADE 2025, BENGALURU DATED 15/11/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 ALSO STAYING ISSUANCE OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE VIDE BEARING NO.UPLOK2/DE/208/2025/ARE-8 DATED 26/02/2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURES-A21 AND A22 IN APPLICATION NO.2129/2026 WHICH IS PART OF ANNEXURE-B

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB WP No. 20519 of 2026 C/W WP No. 20530 of 2026

¶27

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

SERIES PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU.

¶30

IN WP NO.20530/2026

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

SMT. GAYATHRI S W/O YOGENDHRANATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR, RESIDING AT MATHRU NILAYA, 8^TH CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, GAFFAR LAYOUT, BANGARPETE, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

(BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D.,ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶37

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶38

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-8 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB WP No. 20519 of 2026 C/W WP No. 20530 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA)

¶44

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2347/2026 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A WHERE IN INTERIM ORDER IS REFUSED AND ETC.

¶45

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

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

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

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

¶49

The petitioners are before this Court under Articles

¶50

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by non grant of interim order by the Tribunal vide order dated

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB WP No. 20519 of 2026 C/W WP No. 20530 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

11.06.2026 in Application No.2129/2026 and order dated

¶55

22.04.2026 in Application No.2347/2026 respectively.

¶56

Heard learned counsel Sri.Kashinath J D for the petitioners and learned AGA Sri.V Shivareddy for the respondents.

¶57

Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶59

that the petitioners are before the Tribunal questioning the order of entrustment of enquiry to respondent No.2 as well as articles of charge issued by respondent No.3 - Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working as Revenue Inspector and Section Officer respectively in their respective Taluk offices. It is his submission that the alleged charge against the petitioners is without any basis and he particularly pleads that the petitioners have not recommended for grant of land nor they had any power to grant the land. Learned counsel would submit that the grant of land relates prior to their posting to the present places at Mulabagilu Taluk office. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the prima facie case made out

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB WP No. 20519 of 2026 C/W WP No. 20530 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

by the petitioners and failed to grant interim stay of the enquiry.

¶63

On the other hand, learned AGA would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners are to be examined by the Enquiry Officer and, at this premature stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶64

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out prima facie case for grant of interim stay as sought and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the interim prayers. The petitioners have questioned the order of entrustment of enquiry to respondent No.2 and the articles of charge issued by respondent No.3 in pursuant to entrustment of enquiry. If the grounds raised by the petitioners are considered at this stage nothing would remain for consideration by the Tribunal at the time of disposal. Whether petitioners worked at the relevant point of time in the

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB WP No. 20519 of 2026 C/W WP No. 20530 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

said office is a factual aspect which cannot be gone into by this

¶69

Court at this stage.

¶70