- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 17328 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EX-OFFICIO ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ (RDPR), VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) AND: 1. SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE B. KESHAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT DWARAKAMAL, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, 1ST DIVISION, NEAR CHETHANA ENGLISH SCHOOL, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203, PRESENTLY RETIRED AS P.D.O. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, ARAKERE. 2. THE UPALOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-II KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 26.02.2019 IN A.No-11536/2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KSAT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A SET ASIDE THE SAME AS PERVERSE AND ILLEGAL AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.02.2019 PASSED IN A.No-11536/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE KSAT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by the State, challenging the order dated 26.02.2019 in Application No.11536/2016, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, ['Tribunal' for short], allowing the application, setting aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2016 [Annexure-A15], and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 remanding the matter to State to pass appropriate orders in a time bound manner with other directions. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief factual matrix of the lis are as under: 4. The applicant was working as Gram Panchayat Secretary in Chikkabanavara Gram Panchayat, Bengaluru North Taluk at the relevant point of time. One Smt. Premavathi, W/o Kodandaramaiah (complainant before Lokayukta) submitted an application [Anneuxre-A1] dated 06.12.2005, seeking change of Khatha in respect of grama thana property bearing No.127, measuring 400' x 100' situated at Shettihalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru, on the basis of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.895/1996. 5. In response to the application, the applicant issued an endorsement stating that, there is mismatch with respect to the schedule of the grama thana property - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 available in records and the schedule stated in the judgment and decree, suitable action would be taken upon survey of the property through a competent surveyor. This made Smt.Premavathy to lodge a complaint dated 08.03.2007 [Anneuxre-A3], before the second respondent. 6. Upon receipt of complaint, a preliminary investigation was conducted and an observation note was issued on the applicant. Applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations made in the complaint. 7. Not satisfied with the reply submitted by the applicant, the second respondent on 09.07.2013 forwarded its report along with recommendation for entrustment of departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1957 ['CCA Rules, 1957' for short]. The Government accepting the report and recommendation passed orders dated 20.09.2013 entrusting the enquiry with the second respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 8. In pursuance of entrustment orders, an enquiry officer was appointed, who has issued Articles of Charge on the applicant. The applicant submitted his written defence. Not satisfied with statement of defence, the enquiry officer proceeded to hold enquiry and held that the charges levelled against the applicant has been proved and forwarded the report to the second respondent. The second respondent forwarded the report along with its recommendations on 03.02.2016, to the first respondent - petitioner. 9. A second show cause notice came to be issued on the applicant by the disciplinary authority. The applicant submitted his reply on 20.04.2016 [Annexure-A14]. The Government passed the penalty order without making any reference to the reply submitted by the applicant to the second show cause notice, order withholding 25% of his retirement benefits permanently. This order of penalty was called in question in Application No.11536/2016. 10. The applicant before the Tribunal urged that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.895/1996 is with reference - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 to a bare injunction suit, wherein neither there is declaration of right in favour of Smt.Premavathy, nor a direction to the Gram Panchayat to change the Khatha. Since there was a mismatch found in the schedule stated in the judgment and decree and in the schedule of the property available in records, an endorsement was issued stating that needful would be done upon the survey of the land by a competent surveyor. This as per the applicant does not amount to any misconduct as alleged against him in the Articles of charge. 11. It is further submitted that though the applicant has submitted his reply, the same was not considered by the Government, as there is no reference to the reply in the penalty order. As such the order passed by the Government is shockingly disproportionate and is liable to be set aside. 12. In contrast, both the Government as well as the Lokayukta opposed the application, stating that though the decree obtained was not a declarative decree, still the applicant could not have ignored the decree passed by a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 competent Civil Court to take action for change of Khatha. That apart despite issuance of second show cause notice, the applicant has not replied to the same. Accordingly, considering the gravity of the misconduct, the Government passed the impugned penalty order which does not call for any interference. 13. The Tribunal having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, upon considering the material placed before it, especially Annexure-A14, the reply to the second show cause notice, was of the opinion that the applicant did reply to the second show cause notice as the document bears seal and signature of the competent officer to whom it is directed, however there was no reference to the same in the impugned penalty order. The Tribunal further observed that the Government has not at all considered the endorsement issued by the applicant, wherein he has not out rightly rejected the application, what is stated was that the action would be taken only upon appropriate survey, in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 view of mismatch of schedule with respect to the property available in records and the schedule in the decree. 14. Based on these reasons, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that, the order passed is without any application of mind. Accordingly, the application is allowed, quashing the order dated 25.05.2016, remitting the matter to the Government to pass appropriate orders, keeping in mind the observation made in the order and the reply statement at Annexure-14, within a time bound manner. Further the Tribunal has stated that no order of recovery from the monthly pension of the applicant shall be made till the final decision is taken by the Government. It is this order passed by the Tribunal way back in the year 2019, that is called in question in this petition on 16.06.2025 i.e., after 6 years 4 months. 15. Heard Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner/State and perused the entire writ petition papers. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 16. Sri.Shivareddy, tried to emphasize on several grounds against the order passed by the Tribunal, however on a query regarding the plausible explanation for the delay caused in approaching this Court in the present petition, he is not in a position to place any material reason which is beyond the control of the State Authorities for the delay. In the entire petition, nothing is stated about the delay in approaching the Court. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by latches. 17. The doctrine of delay and latches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising power under Articles 226 is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction. 18. The State cannot claim any exception to the case when there is delay and latches in approaching the Court, than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. As the delay defeats all - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49750-DB WP No. 17328 of 2025 the rights. The Court cannot shut its eyes innocuously, when there is obvious and enormous delay in approaching the Court, as the same fosters injustice as it is likely to affect others rights. That apart once finality is attained to an order, due to unexplained and unreasonable lapse of time, respondent cannot be permitted on mere asking, because the litigant is a State. The unexplained delay of six years four months is fatal to the case on hand. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected, and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20