- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35323-DB WP No. 11309 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 11309 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN REDDY K. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. MOHAN.N. GANGOLI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA NAIK, RETIRED DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, R/AT No.41, MERIDIAN ROYAL, 103, 2ND FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, HAMPINAGARA, R.P.C. LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560040. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35323-DB WP No. 11309 of 2023 VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.6092/2019, AS PER ANNEXURE A, THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by the Registrar, is before this Court questioning the order dated 17.10.2019 in Application No.6092/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereunder the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 30.03.2019 and articles of charge dated 23.05.2019 are quashed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35323-DB WP No. 11309 of 2023 2. Heard Sri. K.S. Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned AGA for respondent No.2 and Sri. M. Vinaya Keerthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. Sri. M. Vinaya Keerthy, learned counsel would invite our attention to the memo dated 29.08.2025 whereunder, order dated 02.03.2023 passed in W.P. No.2505/2023 as well as Government Order dated 22.05.2025 are enclosed. Sri. Vinaya Keerthy, learned counsel would submit that the impugned order of the Tribunal in the present writ petition was the subject matter of W.P. No.2505/2023 filed by respondent No.2-State Government and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition, upholding the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that the question of going into the legality of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in the present writ petition would not arise. 4. Sri. K. S. Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2505/2023 and he submits that the Tribunal committed an error in quashing the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35323-DB WP No. 11309 of 2023 entrustment order as well as the articles of charge applying the Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short 'KCSRs'). 5. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The present writ petition is filed on 30.05.2023 whereas Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the State Government challenging the same order of the Tribunal dated 17.10.2019 in Application No.6092/2019 by the time the present writ petition was filed. In pursuance to dismissal of the said writ petition, the Government accepted the said decision. The order of the Tribunal was dated 17.10.2019 and the present writ petition was filed on 30.05.2023, nearly four years from the date of Tribunal passing the order. There is inordinate delay in approaching this Court, which is not properly explained. Paragraph No.3 of the writ petition would indicate that the matter was entrusted to one special counsel of the petitioner on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35323-DB WP No. 11309 of 2023 21.10.2020 and as he failed to file writ petition in the year 2023, the matter was entrusted to the present counsel. The said explanation is unacceptable except statement no material is placed on record. The petitioner-institution could not have waited for years together to file writ petition by its earlier counsel. It only shows that having entrusted the matter to counsel, the petitioner-institution had not followed it up. 7. In view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 02.03.2023 in W.P. No.2505/2023 confirming the order of the Tribunal impugned herein, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36