Shri R Vinay Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2026WP/7501/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: interim prayer non-consideration; direction/request to Tribunal to decide interim application; Article 226 writ against Tribunal interim order dated 17.02.2026; Application No.97/2026; stay of Government Order dated 27.10.2025 entrusting enquiry to Lokayukta; Articles of Charge dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-A7); adjournments causing prejudice to applicant; State time till 12.03.2026 to file objection; writ petition disposed of; Superintending Engineer Public Works Department petitioner; Karnataka High Court Division Bench S.K. SAT matters.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a request/direction to the Tribunal to consider and decide the petitioner's interim prayer on 12.03.2026 on its merit in accordance with law, irrespective of whether the State files objection. ¶48-49

Shri R Vinay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48-49

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should interfere with the Tribunal's order dated 17.02.2026 in Application No.97/2026, whereby the petitioner's prayer for interim stay of the entrustment order dated 27.10.2025 and the Articles of Charge dated 17.11.2025 was left unconsidered and further time was granted to the State to file objections.

¶32

Court's answer

The Tribunal has not considered the petitioner's interim prayer for stay of the Government Order entrusting the enquiry to the third respondent and the Articles of Charge dated 17.11.2025; nor has it rejected that interim prayer.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

While granting one or two adjournments to the State to file objection to the interim prayer may be reasonable, adjourning beyond that would prejudice the petitioner's case.

¶42

Key takeaways

The Tribunal is requested to consider the petitioner's interim prayer on 12.03.2026 on its merit in accordance with law, whether or not the State files objection to the interim prayer.ratio¶46-47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench: S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ.; order per S.G. Pandit J.) disposed of Writ Petition No. 7501 of 2026 (S-KSAT), filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Superintending Engineer (Public Works Department) awaiting posting, challenging the interim order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.97/2026. By that interim order the Tribunal had neither allowed nor rejected the petitioner's prayer for interim stay of the Government Order dated 27.10.2025 entrusting an enquiry against him to the Lokayukta (third respondent) and of the Articles of Charge dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-A7), and instead granted the State time till 12.03.2026 to file objections. The Court held that the Tribunal has not considered and has not rejected the interim prayer; that one or two adjournments for filing objection may be reasonable but continuance thereof would prejudice the petitioner; and requested the Tribunal to consider the interim prayer on 12.03.2026 on its merit in accordance with law whether or not the State files objection. With this observation, the writ petition stood disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14044-DB WP No. 7501 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

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

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 7501 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SHRI R. VINAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O M. RAMACHANDRA SWAMY

¶13

WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (PRESENTLY WAITING FOR POSTINGS) R/AT FLAT No.D-215,

¶14

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

BRIGADE SOLITAIRE APARTMENT, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 011.

¶16

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (SOUTH), K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:14044-DB WP No. 7501 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THE HON'BLE LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FRO R1 & R2; SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/02/2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.97/2026 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE INTERIM PRAYER IS CONCERNED (VIDE ANNEXURE-A).

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner is before this Court questioning the interim order dated 17.02.2026, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for interim stay of order of entrustment of enquiry dated 27.10.2025 as well as Articles of Charge dated 17.11.2025 is not considered and further time has been granted to the respondents-State to file objection.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14044-DB WP No. 7501 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶36

Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner approached the Tribunal questioning the Government Order dated 27.10.2025 entrusting the enquiry against the petitioner to the third respondent, as well as the Articles of Charge dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-A7) issued by the third respondent. In the application, it is stated that the petitioner had prayed for interim stay of both order of entrustment of enquiry as well as Articles of Charge. However, it is submitted that the Tribunal at the first instance on 19.01.2026, after ordering notice to the respondents, posted the application on 17.02.2026 for filing of objection by the respondents. Learned counsel would submit that on 17.02.2026, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, time was granted till 12.03.2026 to file objection. It is his submission that if no orders are passed on the interim prayer, the interim prayer

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14044-DB WP No. 7501 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

itself would be frustrated and would become infructuous. Hence, he would pray for considering the interim prayer by this Court.

¶40

On the other hand, Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that he would instruct the authorities to file objection to the application by 12.03.2026.

¶41

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶42

It is clear that the Tribunal has not considered the interim prayer of the petitioner for stay of Government Order entrusting the enquiry to the third respondent as well as the Articles of Charge dated 17.11.2025 issued by the third respondent. The Tribunal has also not rejected the interim prayer of the petitioner. The Tribunal has granted sufficient opportunity to the State to file objection. To file objection to the interim prayer granting one or two adjournments would be reasonable, thereafter it would prejudice the case of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, it would be appropriate

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:14044-DB WP No. 7501 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

to request and accordingly the Tribunal is requested to consider

¶47

the interim prayer of the petitioner on 12.03.2026 on its merit in accordance with law whether the State would file objection to the interim prayer or not.

¶48

With the above observation, writ petition stands

¶49

disposed of .

¶50

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶52

DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Shri R Vinay Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri R Vinay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumithra Vs Sundar Poojary

Mr. Krishna M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Loknatha M D Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Mahalakshmi M Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshmidevi Vs the Depo Manager

Sri. P. Bala Murali Krishna Vs the Deputy Secretary