Dismissed¶69

The Registrar v. the Deputy and Ex Officio

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/3311/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984; Section 9(3); suomotu investigation; Upa-Lokayukta opinion; observation note Annexure-A6 dated 16.05.2013; opportunity to offer comments; competent authority; principles of natural justice; KSAT Application No. 5346/2023; Tribunal order dated 31.05.2024; quashing of enquiry report dated 30.07.2022 and penalty order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-A10); Panchayat Development Officer; Nonavinakere Grama Panchayat; premature application; articles of charge; Section 21 delegation; Section 15 officers; writ of certiorari; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed/rejected; Karnataka High Court Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing the enquiry report dated 30.07.2022 and the penalty order dated 06.12.2023, and the writ petition was rejected.

The Registrar Vs the Deputy and Ex Officio — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing the enquiry report dated 30.07.2022 and the penalty order dated 06.12.2023, and the writ petition was rejected.

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in quashing the enquiry report dated 30.07.2022 and the penalty order dated 06.12.2023, given that the observation note forwarded was not accompanied by the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta as required under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. +2 more

¶46

Court's answer

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is liable to be rejected only on the ground that the observation note was not accompanied by the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta.

¶46

Key takeaways

Reading of Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984: whenever suomotu action is initiated by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, the opinion recorded must be forwarded to the public servant and the competent authority concerned, so as to afford the public servant an opportunity to offer comments on the complaint or opinion.ratio¶58
The observation note placed on record as Annexure-A6 dated 16.05.2013 does not contain the opinion formed by the Upa-Lokayukta.ratio¶59
Since the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta was not forwarded to respondent No.2, she was denied a proper opportunity to defend her case; this amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and defeats the purpose and object of Section 9(3) of the Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ.; oral judgment per S.G. Pandit J.), WP No. 3311 of 2025 (S-KSAT), decided 15 April 2026. The Registrar and Additional Registrar (Enquiries-7), Karnataka Lokayukta, sought certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 to quash the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 31.05.2024 in Application No. 5346/2023, which had quashed the enquiry report dated 30.07.2022 and the penalty order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-A10) passed against respondent No.2, a Panchayat Development Officer. Held: under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, in a suomotu matter the opinion recorded by the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta must be forwarded to the public servant and the competent authority so as to afford the public servant an opportunity to offer comments; the observation note (Annexure-A6, dated 16.05.2013) did not contain the Upa-Lokayukta's opinion and that opinion was not forwarded to respondent No.2, denying her a proper opportunity to defend her case — a violation of principles of natural justice defeating the purpose and object of Section 9(3). The writ petition was rejected solely on this ground; other contentions (prematurity of the Tribunal application; delegation of functions under Section 21) were expressly kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20473-DB WP No. 3311 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

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

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 3311 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-7 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE DEPUTY AND EX. OFFICIO UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, (VILLAGE PANCHAYATH) RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

SMT. SOWBHAGYAVATHI W/O BANGARAPPA M, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, J.C PURA, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, (THEN PDO OF NONAVINAKERE GRAMA PANCHAYAT) TIPTUR TALUK, R/O GANDHIGRAMA DABBEGHATTA HOBLI,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:20473-DB WP No. 3311 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572227.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO. 5346 OF 2023 AND B) PASS ANY SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER ORDERS THAT THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

Petitioners – Lokayukta Authorities are before this

¶32

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 31.05.2024 in Application No.5346/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the respondent No.2’s application challenging the enquiry report dated 30.07.2022 as well as

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:20473-DB WP No. 3311 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

penalty order passed by the first respondent dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-A10) are quashed.

¶37

Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in quashing the enquiry report dated 30.07.2022 as well as penalty order passed by the first respondent dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-A10) without noticing the fact that the observation note was forwarded to the petitioners as required under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’). Further, learned counsel would submit that respondent No.2’s application was premature and the Tribunal at the preliminary stage could not have quashed the articles of charge. Learned counsel would further submit that the officer who has forwarded the

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20473-DB WP No. 3311 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

observation note is an officer of the petitioners – Lokayukta and in terms of Section 21 of the Act, the UpaLokayukta could delegate the functions to the officers and employees of the Lokayukta referred to in Section 15 of the Act. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶42

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶43

Sri.V.Shivareddy would support the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners – Lokayukta.

¶44

On hearing the learned counsel appearing for

¶45

the parties and on going through the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶46

Only on the ground that the observation note was not accompanied by the opinion of the UpaLokayukta, this writ petition is liable to be rejected.

¶47

Section 9(3) of 1984 Act reads as follows:

¶48

“9 Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.- (1)…….

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20473-DB WP No. 3311 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he,-

¶52

(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint and in the case of an investigation initiated suomotu by him, the opinion recorded by him to initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, of section 7; to the public servant and the competent authority concerned;

¶53

(b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint; or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 7 as the case may be;

¶54

(c) may make such order as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit.”

¶55

A reading of the above provision makes it clear that whenever suomotu action is initiated by Lokayukta or UpaLokayukta, the opinion recorded by the Lokayukta or UpaLokayukta shall be forwarded to the public servant and the

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20473-DB WP No. 3311 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

competent authority concerned, so as to afford an opportunity to the public servant to offer his comments on such complaint or opinion recorded by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta.

¶59

We have perused the observation note placed on record as Annexure-A6 dated 16.05.2013. The observation note would not contain the opinion formed by the Upa-Lokayukta.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners

¶61

Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty referring to the original records submits that the Upa-Lokayukta recorded his opinion on 16.05.2013. However, the said opinion is not part of the observation note.

¶62

In terms of Section 9(3) of the Act, the opinion recorded by the Upa-Lokayukta shall be forwarded in suomotu case. Since the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta is not forwarded to the respondent No.2, which has resulted in

¶63

denial of proper opportunity to respondent No.2 in

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:20473-DB WP No. 3311 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

defending her case, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Further, it would defeat the purpose and object of Section 9(3) of the Act.

¶68

In view of the above, we refrain from considering the other contentions raised by the petitioners and the same are kept open.

¶69

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶70

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶71

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶72

NC CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

The Registrar v. the Deputy and Ex Officio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Registrar v. the Deputy and Ex Officio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivaraj, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Tejaswi C Vs the Principal Secretary and Appellate Authority

Sri Anand Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Naveen Chandra Kulal B Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri R Santosh

The Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka Vs Smt. Vimala M C