- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5942-DB WP No. 3434 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 3434 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT.M.L.SHYLAJA W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. 186, MANJUNATH ROAD THYGARAJANAGARA BENGALURU 560 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECERTARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA LOK AYUKTHA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR MS BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-12 OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKT MS BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH – AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI – SPL. COUNSEL FOR REPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 - ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5942-DB WP No. 3434 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION No. 4713 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-C. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in A.No.4713/2024 dated 22.01.2025 as per Annexure-C. 2. Learned counsel Sri Abhinay Y.T. for the petitioner is present before the Court physically. 3. Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri Venkatesh S.Arabatti is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5942-DB WP No. 3434 of 2025 4. Counsel for the petitioner emphatically submits for consideration of the grounds urged in this writ petition seeking intervention of the order passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the petitioner retired as Additional Director of Prosecution. On 20.05.2017 articles of charges were issued against the petitioner and five witnesses were notified. The enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was attending the same. On 09.09.2024, the Presiding Officer examined the investigating officer as PW.4. On the same day, he was cross examined in part and thereafter, within a period of six days i.e. on 17.09.2024, PW.4 was cross-examined in full. Subsequently, on 23.09.2024, the petitioner made an application seeking to recall PW.4 for further cross examination, however, the enquiry officer rejected the same. Hence, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal in A.No.4713/2024 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2025. Hence, the present writ petition by the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the reasoning of the Tribunal in rejecting the application is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5942-DB WP No. 3434 of 2025 erroneous and the same has to be set-aside. He contends that in law and in practice, the party making the application is required to show sufficient cause for filing the application. The DGO has to be provided with all opportunity to establish the case. The order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the said application is erroneous. On all these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Learned AGA for respondent – State submits that the petitioner has already completed cross-examination of PW.4 and the application to recall PW.4 does not arise. The petitioner has not stated any genuine reasons to recall the order inspite of sufficient opportunities to cross- examine PW. 4. On these grounds he sought for dismissal of writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material documents, it is relevant to refer the order passed by the Enquiry Officer wherein it is observed that CW.4 was examined as PW.4 on 9.9.2024 and on the said date the witness was cross examined in part by the counsel for DGO. Thereafter at his request, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5942-DB WP No. 3434 of 2025 the cross examination was deferred on costs of Rs.3000/-. Again on 17.09.2024, the witness was cross examined by the counsel for DGO in full and the presenting officer closed his side. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, it could be seen that the witness was cross examined by the DGO extensively. The above matter is of the year 2017 and even after lapse of 7 years, this authority has not been able to dispose of the above matter. Hence, the application lacks bonafide and deserves to be ejected. Accordingly, the application came to be rejected. 8. The said order was challenged before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in A.No.4713/2024 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2025. 9. However, keeping in view the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and so also, having gone through the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer and so also, the Tribunal, it is relevant to note that the application was filed under Rule 11(15) of the KCS (CCA) Rules praying to recall PW.4 for further cross examination. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5942-DB WP No. 3434 of 2025 reasons assigned in the application is that some important questions could not be asked to PW.4 during the cross- examination, therefore PW.4 is to be recalled. But what are those important questions in respect of which aspect, nothing has been stated in the application. The petitioner has not stated any genuine reasons to recall PW.4 for further cross examination. The petitioner has not made out any ground to consider the prayer made in the writ petition. There are no infirmities or illegalities committed by either the Enquiry Officer or the Tribunal in rejecting the application. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to state that without dwelling into detail the order passed by the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal and so also, the materials available on record, there is no merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB