- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.19812 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING BENGALURU 3 560 001 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, ENQUIRIES-10 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING BENGALURU 3 560 001 PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE REP BY ITS REGISTRAR &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT (SERVICE-A) M S BUILDING BENGALURU 3 560 001 Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 2. *SMT. K. H. MOHANA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER GRADE-II, O/O NO.1, HEMAVATHI RIGHT BANK CANAL SUB DIVISION ARAKALGUDU, R/AT AMMA NILAYA A C GIRI ROAD, VIDHYANAGAR HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT 3 570 001. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1; SMT. MANJULA V A, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.2771/2021 (ANNEXURE-A); b) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioners, the Lokayukta authorities are before this Court questioning the order dated 20.07.2022 in Application No.2771/2021 passed by the Karnataka State * Corrected vide Court order dated 30.01.2026 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal') by which, the entrustment order dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure 3 A3) as well as the Charge Memo bearing No.Upalok-2/DE/26/2020/ARE-10 dated 10.06.2020 (Annexure - A4) are quashed. 2. Heard Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for the respondent No.1 as well as Smt.Manjula V.A., learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in quashing the entrustment order as well as Charge Memo dated 10.06.2020. He submits that the Tribunal proceeded to quash the Charge Memo on the ground that there is delay in entrusting and initiating the enquiry as well as on the ground that there is no financial loss to the Government. He submits that there is no delay in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 initiating the enquiry. It is his submission that the charge against respondent No.2 and others is that project is not completed within the prescribed time i.e., 16 months from 24.05.2010. He submits that even on the date of report dated 20.09.2017 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the work had not been completed as submitted by the learned AGO in his reply. As such, he submits that when the work itself is not completed, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that the enquiry is initiated belatedly. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal is also not justified in quashing the Charge Memo on the ground that there is no financial loss to the Government. He submits that it is only a letter written from the Government to the Upa-Lokayukta and the said letter cannot be the basis for coming to conclusion that there is no loss caused to the Government. Thus, learned counsel prayed for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 justified the order passed by the Tribunal by submitting that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 work was entrusted in the year 2010 and the period fixed was 16 months. Learned counsel would submit that by 2014, the work was completed and water was released through the canal. It is also submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that charges are vague and the charge would not specify allegation against each of the 9 delinquent officials. No particulars of payment made and the charge would not indicate the period during which, each of the AGOs worked in the said project. Thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. 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. 6. A perusal of the charge memo dated 10.06.2020 (Annexure-A4) makes it clear that it is common charge memo against 9 officials. The first charge alleged against 9 delinquent officials that they have failed to take any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 action against the Contractor for not completing the contract work within the prescribed time i.e., 16 months. The charge would not indicate during which period he was in-charge of the Project and it would not also not fix the responsibility of any particular delinquent official. It would not also indicate the role played by each of the delinquent official in the alleged charge. 7. The second charge is, though prima facie it is found that the work carried out by the Contractor is substandard, before completion of work, 90% of the contract amount has been paid which amounts to dereliction of duty. In the said charge also individual role of the delinquent officials in releasing of the contract amount is not stated. What is the percentage of contract amount is released by each of the delinquent official is also not indicated. It would not indicate how and in what manner the delinquent officials are responsible for release of the amount. When those particulars the charge would be general charge and it is a vague charge. The Hon'ble - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 Apex Court in ANIL GILURKER v/s BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK AND ANOTHER reported in (2011)14 SCC 379 at paragraphs 11 and 14 has held as follows: <11. A plain reading of the charges and the statement of imputations reproduced above would show that only vague allegations were made against the appellant that he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was misappropriated by him and others. The details of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the appellant have not been mentioned. 12. We also find that along with the charge-sheet dated 31-1-1989 no statement of imputations giving the particulars of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts of loans sanctioned, disbursed and misappropriated were furnished to the appellant, and yet the disciplinary authority has called upon the appellant to submit his written defence statement in reply to the charges. We fail to appreciate how the appellant could have submitted his written statement in defence in respect of the charges and how a fair enquiry could be held unless he was furnished with the particulars of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts of loan sanctioned, the amounts actually disbursed and the amounts - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 misappropriated were also furnished in the charge- sheet. 13. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B.2: (SCC. p. 553, para 5) "5. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be b reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him." 14. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar (supra) and in Para 35 of the judgment as reported in the SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.= 8. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the application on the ground of delay. The complaint is dated 31.05.2014 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22899-DB WP No. 19812 of 2023 whereas, Section 12(3) report under the Act, 1984 is dated 20.09.2017. Based on the Section 12(3) report, the enquiry was entrusted to Upa-Lokayukta under Government Order dated 19.12.2019. The Articles of Charge is issued on 10.06.2020. Based on the above sequence of events, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is delay in initiating the enquiry. In addition to that as explained above, the respondent *No.2 had moved out of the Sub-Division even before completion of 16 months time provided for completion of work as well as the charge is vague, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 * Corrected vide Court order dated 30.01.2026