- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14014-DB WP No. 104583 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO.104583 OF 2024 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SHRI. AJJANGOUDA PATIL, S/O VADAKANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, R/O. OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, KARWAR, PRESENTLY WORKING AT: OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14014-DB WP No. 104583 of 2024 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-583101, TQ./DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, SIRSI SUB-DIVISION, SIRSI-581401, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, ENQUIRES-8, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.01.2024 IN APPLICATION NO.10766/2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.10766/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14014-DB WP No. 104583 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner, a First Division Assistant (FDA) of the Revenue Department, is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 10.01.2024 passed in Application No.10766/2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder the prayer of the petitioner to quash the Government Order dated 03.11.2022 entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the CCA Rules’), as well as the Articles of Charge dated 05.07.2023 issued by Karnataka Lokayukta is refused to be quashed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as FDA at the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Karwar, a trap was laid by the Lokayukta, and a FIR under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) was filed against the petitioner. On - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14014-DB WP No. 104583 of 2024 investigation, the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act of 1984’) to the Government. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice dated 10/29.03.2022 (Annexure-A1), along with list of allegations/charges against the petitioner including the charge of demanding and accepting a sum of Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification. On the report submitted by the Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, the Government issued an order dated 03.11.2022 entrusting the enquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. On entrustment of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer of the Karnataka Lokayukta issued Articles of Charge dated 05.07.2023. In the meanwhile, it is submitted that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner completed enquiry and submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner holding that charge No.1 was partly proved, and with regard to charge No.2, the Enquiry Officer held that since the matter was pending before Lokayukta, he refused to express any opinion. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14014-DB WP No. 104583 of 2024 3. Questioning the order of entrustment dated 03.11.2022 as well as Articles of Charge dated 05.07.2023, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the aforesaid application. By the impugned order dated 10.01.2024, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner with an observation that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 is without authority and the Articles of Charge issued by Lokayukta would not qualify as fresh enquiry. Questioning the order of the Tribunal, the entrustment order, and the Articles of charge, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Heard Sri. A.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, and Sri. Anil Kale, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. Learned counsel Sri. A.S.Patil would submit that the enquiry on the charge memo issued by respondent No.2 dated 10/29.03.2022 was complete and when the enquiry report was submitted to respondent No.2, it was not open for the State - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14014-DB WP No. 104583 of 2024 Government to entrust the enquiry to Lokayukta and, in turn, the Lokayukta could not have issued Articles of Charge. It is his submission that when the enquiry report was submitted, it was for respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner to proceed with further action on the enquiry report. Without passing any order on the enquiry report, the respondent No.1-State Government could not have proceeded further to entrust enquiry to the Lokayukta. Learned counsel would further submit that in the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, charge No.1 is partly proved and with regard to second charge, the Enquiry Officer has not expressed any opinion. In that circumstances, the entrustment of enquiry and issuance of Articles of Charge is illegal and arbitrary. 6. On the other hand, learned Principal Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale appearing for Lokayukta would submit that the Deputy Commissioner without a report to initiate enquiry upon and Section 12(3) report having been submitted by the Lokayukta to the Government, the Deputy Commissioner could not have initiated an enquiry and the enquiry initiated is without authority - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14014-DB WP No. 104583 of 2024 of law insofar as the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.2,000/- by the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 8. It is an admitted fact that a FIR was lodged against the petitioner and a trap was conducted while receiving bribe of Rs.2,000/-. On investigation, respondent No.4 submitted a report under Section 12(3) of Act of 1984 and, on consideration of the said report, the State entrusted enquiry to respondent No.4 by Government Order dated 03.11.2022 and on entrustment the Enquiry Officer issued Articles of Charges dated 05.07.2023. When the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta have submitted its report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, it is for the State Government to take a decision either to entrust the enquiry or to drop the proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner has no authority or jurisdiction to initiate any enquiry when an investigation is initiated and conducted by Lokayukta. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14014-DB WP No. 104583 of 2024 9. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire material on record is right in observing that the initiation of enquiry by respondent No.2 is without authority and Articles of Charges issued by respondent No.4 would not amount to fresh enquiry or second enquiry. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. However, respondent No.4 is directed to forthwith proceed with the enquiry. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29