- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28868-DB WP No. 4418 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 4418 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. NANJUNDAIAH, S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, PWD, SUB-DIVISION, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28868-DB WP No. 4418 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/06/2019 IN APPLICATION BEARING No.74/2017 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1. 2. This writ petition is by Lokayukta challenging the order dated 28.06.2019 passed in Application No. 74 of 2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short Tribunal). 3. The brief facts are as follows: Respondent No. 2 was employed as Junior Engineer, PRE Sub-Division, Sakaleshpur. In the year 2012, a complaint was filed before the petitioner by one Sri T. P. Krishnappa, alleging - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28868-DB WP No. 4418 of 2024 dereliction of duty. The technical wing of the Lokayukta conducted an investigation and submitted its report. Subsequently, the Lokayukta submitted a report under Sections 12(1) and 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Government thereafter passed an entrustment order, and articles of charge were issued to Respondent No.2 on 10.06.2014. Respondent No.2 submitted his statement of defence on 04.01.2015. Further, Respondent No.2 was issued a show cause notice dated 07.12.2016. 4. Respondent No.2 thereafter preferred an application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, seeking to quash the articles of charge as well as the show cause notice. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside both the show cause notice dated 07.12.2016 and the articles of charge. The Tribunal observed that the incident complained of occurred in the year 2004, while the complaint was filed only in 2010. Further held that in view of Sections 8(2)(c) and (d) of the Act, the Lokayukta was precluded from investigating the complaint. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28868-DB WP No. 4418 of 2024 Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the show cause notice and articles of charge. 5. Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Lokayukta, impugning the order of the Tribunal, submits that Respondent No.2 has committed misconduct punishable under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Conduct Rules’). It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 had duly entrusted the investigation under Section 12(4) of the Act. Learned counsel contends that the challenge to the show cause notice is premature, as Respondent No.2 had an adequate remedy to submit a reply to the show cause notice, which would have been duly considered in accordance with law. 6. Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate, appears for Respondent No. 1. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1, it is evident that the complaint against Respondent No.2 was filed in the year 2010, alleging dereliction of duty relating to the period of 2004. As rightly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28868-DB WP No. 4418 of 2024 observed by the Tribunal, Section 8(2) of the Act imposes certain restrictions on the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta from investigating complaints. Clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act are relevant in the present case. As per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, a complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period of six months from the date on which the action complained of becomes known to the complainant shall not be investigated. Similarly, clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act stipulates that a complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained of is alleged to have taken place shall not be investigated. 8. The Tribunal, having noted that the alleged dereliction of duty pertains to the year 2004 and that the complaint in respect thereof was filed only in the year 2010, which is beyond the period prescribed under Section 8(2)(d) of the Act, has rightly interfered and set aside the show cause notice and the articles of charge. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28868-DB WP No. 4418 of 2024 9. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act. No apparent infirmity is discernible in the impugned orders of the Tribunal that would warrant interference by this Court. Consequently, this writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS CT:PR