- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19745-DB WP No. 15136 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.15136 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI P LAKSHMAN RAO S/O LATE N.PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION NANJANGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301 R/A NO 4429, 3RD STAGE, DATTAGAHALLI, 4TH J CROSS, 12TH MAIN, KANAKADASANAGAR, MYSURU - 570 001 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19745-DB WP No. 15136 of 2024 VIKAS SOUDA BENGALURU - 560 001 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MYSURU - 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.362 AND 495/2019, AS PER ANNEXURE-B; b) AWARD THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner – Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court under Article–226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by order dated 04.02.2021, in Application - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19745-DB WP No. 15136 of 2024 Nos.362-495/2019, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), by which the Government order dated 27.10.2018, entrusting the enquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta and consequent articles of charge dated 19.12.2018, are quashed with liberty to the first respondent – State Government to consider and examine the report under Section-12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 report of the Upa- Lokayukta afresh and independently take a decision in accordance with law. 2. Heard Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent No.2 and perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition and further submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the entrustment order, as well as the articles of charge, without appreciating the fact that the first respondent – - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19745-DB WP No. 15136 of 2024 Government in its entrustment order has observed that the Government – Disciplinary Authority has examined the relevant documents, which would suffice the purpose. 4. Admittedly, the State Government – Disciplinary Authority is not aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and has not challenged the said order before this Court. If at all any person that would be aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal, would be the State Government, but the State Government has not come up before this Court on the other hand has accepted the order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner- Karnataka Lokayukta who is the second respondent before the Tribunal i.e., Enquiring Authority has no locus to come before this Court. That too, when the Tribunal while quashing the order of entrustment and articles of charge, has reserved liberty to the State Government to examine Section-12(3) report of the Upa-Lokayukta afresh independently and take a decision in accordance with law. Section-12(4) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 requires - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19745-DB WP No. 15136 of 2024 the Competent Authority to examine the report forwarded to it under Section-12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. 5. This Court in an identical facts and circumstances in Writ Petition No.2981/2023 and connected matters, dated 15.04.2025, has come to the conclusion that when the matters are remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration retaining the report under Section-12(3) of Act 1984, the Enquiring Authority i.e., Lokayukta does not have sufficient locus. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10