- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 28262 OF 2023 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: SRI RAVIKUMAR R S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR CIRCLE-39, BENGALURU RESIDING AT NO. 120, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KEMPE GOWDA LAYOUT LAGGERE, BENGALURU 560 058 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE LOKAYUKTA REP BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR KARMIKA BHAVAN BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 029 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B. AGA FOR R1 & R3, SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT LOKAYUKTA BEARING NO.COMPLIANT/UPA-LOKA/MYS/1614/2022, MANDANADHIKARI SHAKE. ARE-18, DATED 27/10/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ENTRUSTMENT AS PER GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.KA.E 651 LET 2022, 06/07/2023 (ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES BEARING NO.UPA-LOKA-1/DE/132/2023/A.Ne.Ve-7, DATED 31/08/2023 (ANNEXURE-C) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ARE PER SE ILLEGAL AND IN OPERATIVE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought the following relief: "Issue an appropriate writ order or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned report submitted by the 2nd Respondent Lokayukta bearing No. Complaint/Upa- Loka/MYS/1614/2022, Mandanadhikari Shake. ARE-18, dated.27.10.2022 (Annexure:-A) and the impugned order of entrustment as per Govt. Order No. Ka.E 651 LET 2022, 06-07-2023 (Annexure:-B) issued by the 1st Respondent and consequently the Article of Charges bearing No. Upa-Loka-1/DE/132/2023/A.Ne.Ve-7, dated. 31-08-2023 (Annexure:-C) issued by the 2nd Respondent are per se illegal and in operative in the interest of justice and equity." 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 - Lokayuktha submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for brevity, “1984 Act”) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 to respondent No.1 seeking for entrustment of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was holding unaccounted amount of Rs.18,300/- by indulging in illegal activities and thus, alleged the said action of the petitioner amounts to dereliction of duty. It is further alleged in the report that when the petitioner was discharging his duties as Labour Inspector, Circle-1 in the Labour Office, Udupi at Rajathadari, Manipal, in order to issue fresh license/renewal of license for shops and commercial establishments has received bribe from the applicants who have submitted applications for the same. Based on the credible information, the concerned Superintendent of Police of Lokayuktha, Udupi has registered case in Crime No.7/2014 under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity “1988 Act”) and recovered a sum of Rs.18,300/- from the petitioner. Thereafter, a report has been forwarded by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet has been filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 against the petitioner. However, after perusal of the report, the Disciplinary Authority, who being the Sanctioning Authority, has refused to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide order dated 09.11.2015. The Investigating Officer, having not satisfied with the rejection order, has once again sought for review of the order passed by the Sanctioning Authority and requested to accord sanction vide letter dated 12.02.2016. However, the said proposal was also rejected on 28.04.2016 and subsequently, on 16.12.2016. After rejection of three proposals by the Sanctioning Authority, the Lokayukta has challenged the same in W.P.No.30034/2017 before this Court and the same is pending consideration. 3. The petitioner has also challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings in Crime No.7/2014 in Criminal Petition No.5249/2014, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an order observing that quashing of complaint does not warrant as it would die on its own since the prosecution has been refused against the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 petitioner by the Sanctioning Authority. Despite, respondent No.2 has submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act on 27.10.2022 and by relying on the opinion of the Law Department, the entrustment order was issued as per impugned order dated 06.07.2023 entrusting respondent No.2 to hold the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and followed by the same, the impugned Articles of charges have been framed against the petitioner on 31.08.2023, which was received by the petitioner on 04.10.2023. 4. Being aggrieved by the report, the entrustment order and the Articles of Charges, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition. 5. We have heard Sri Vijaya Raghava Sarathy H.M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manjunath B., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the report under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act, the order of entrustment dated 06.07.2023 and impugned Articles of charges dated 31.08.2023 are contrary to law and facts for the reason that respondent No.2 initiated disciplinary proceedings after lapse of more than 8 years of the alleged act, though not committed by the petitioner. According to him, the said investigation is contrary to Section 8(2)(d) of the 1984 Act. He further contended that the Disciplinary Authority on three occasions sitting as a Sanctioning Authority, having verified the very same investigation report and material documents, had rejected to accord sanction and thereafter, sitting as a Disciplinary Authority passed an entrustment order under Section 14(a) of the 1984 Act, which is totally unsustainable under law. 7. He also contended that the FIR filed against the petitioner in Crime No.7/2014 was challenged before this Court in the aforesaid Criminal Petition and the learned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 Single Judge of this Court while disposing the said petition has observed that quashing of complaint does not warrant as it would die on its own since the prosecution has been refused against the petitioner by the Sanctioning Authority. In such circumstances, the report and the subsequent actions are untenable. As such, he prays to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned report and subsequent orders. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Lokayukta contended that the report under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act dated 27.10.2022 by the Lokayukta clearly discloses that Rs.18,300/- unaccounted money has been seized from the petitioner by the Lokayukta based on the complaint lodged by one Ravikumar s/o Rangaswamy that the petitioner being the Labour Inspector demanded the money from the complainant and others for sanctioning and renewing of license for commercial shops at Manipal, Udupi. Based on the said complaint, FIR has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.7/2014 for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act and after detail investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the said case. The report of the Lokayukta also discloses that the petitioner had failed to offer any acceptable reply for the unaccounted money recovered from him. In such circumstance, the Lokayukta has rightly submitted the report under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act to the Disciplinary Authority for entrustment order. Pursuant to the said report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 06.07.2023 to conduct investigation against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Lokayukta has filed the Articles of Charges. Hence, the commission of the act by the petitioner has to be tested in a detailed disciplinary inquiry and at this stage, either the report, entrustment order or Articles of Charges do not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 9. The learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 3, by adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 for the Lokayukta, has supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. We have given our anxious consideration both on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the material documents placed before us. 11. As could be gathered from records, based on the complaint of employees and officers of Labour department, FIR has been registered against the petitioner on 30.07.2014 in Crime No.7/2014 under the provisions of the 1988 Act for demand of illegal gratification. Thereafter, a raid has been conducted and a sum of Rs.18,300/- i.e., unaccounted money has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Subsequently, though a charge sheet has been submitted in Crime No.7/2014, the same was challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No.5249/2017 and this Court has disposed of the said petition by observing that in view of non-according of sanction to prosecute the petitioner by the Sanctioning - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 Authority, the complaint would die on its own. Further, though the Lokayukta has requested the Sanctioning Authority to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner, the Sanctioning Authority after perusal of materials rejected to accord sanction thrice. It is equally important to note that the materials in the criminal proceedings as well as in the report filed under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act are one and the same. Admittedly, there was no fresh material/evidence placed against the petitioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The present report under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act, the entrustment order and the Articles of Charges were issued after lapse of more than 8 years. As per Section 14(a) of the 1984 Act, there cannot be entrustment for the very same charge for which sanction was rejected earlier. Nevertheless, now after lapse of 8 years, the enquiry has been conducted by the Lokayukta which is hit by the provisions under Section 8(2)(d) of the 1984 Act. Hence, in our considered view, the report filed under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42290-DB WP No. 28262 of 2023 subsequent actions of entrustment order and issuance of Articles of Charge are not sustainable under law and therefore, they are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ petition is allowed. ii) The report submitted by respondent No.2- Lokayukta bearing No. Complaint/Upa- Loka/MYS/1614/2022, Mandanadhikari Shake. ARE-18, dated 27.10.2022 and the order of entrustment as per Government Order No. Ka.E 651 LET 2022, 06-07-2023 issued by respondent No.1 and the Article of Charges bearing No. Upa-Loka-1/DE/132/2023/A.Ne.Ve- 7, dated 31-08-2023 issued by respondent No.2 are quashed. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43