- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13733-DB WP No. 105189 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH 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.105189 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR, O/O UPALOKAYUKTA MULTI-STOREY BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRY-15, O/O UPALOKAYUKTA, MULTI-STOREY BUILDING, DR. AMBEKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RANGAPPA C.N. S/O NAGAPPA, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13733-DB WP No. 105189 of 2023 HORTICULTURE, HEAD QUARTER ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI, R/O ADHNUR, TQ. HLELKERE, DIST. CHITRADURGA 577 501. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HORTICULTURE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF HORTICULTURE, LALBAGH, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2022 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.11079/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2022 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.11079/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS & ETC. THIS WP COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13733-DB WP No. 105189 of 2023 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) Heard the learned counsel, Sri. G.I.Gachchinamath appearing for the petitioner. The Karnataka Lokayukta represented by its Officers is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 22.07.2022 passed in Application No.11079/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder the respondent No.1/applicant’s challenge to the Articles of Charge dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure-A2) is allowed and quashed solely on the ground of delay of ten years in initiating the enquiry. 2. The complainant filed a complaint dated 19.06.2018 against respondent No.1. On the basis of the said complaint, the petitioner conducted investigation - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13733-DB WP No. 105189 of 2023 and submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’). Considering the report submitted by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act, the respondent-State entrusted the enquiry to the petitioners under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. On entrustment of enquiry, the petitioner-institution issued Articles of Charge dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure-A2). On receipt of the Articles of Charge, the respondent No.1 was before Tribunal in the aforesaid application challenging the Articles of Charge on several grounds, one of the grounds being delay in initiating the enquiry. The Tribunal, on consideration, quashed the Articles of Charge. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel, Sri. G.I.Gachchinamath submits that the Tribunal could not have quashed the Articles of Charge only on the ground of delay in initiating the enquiry. Further, learned counsel would - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13733-DB WP No. 105189 of 2023 submit that taking note of the gravity of charge, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the petitioner to proceed further in the enquiry. He submits that there is no delay in initiating the enquiry from the date of receipt of the complaint. Further, learned counsel would submit that the delay in issuance of Articles of Charge would not by itself give a cause of action to the respondent(s) to challenge the same. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Admittedly, the complainant submitted a complaint to the petitioners on 19.06.2018 in respect of an event which had taken place in the year 2009-10. The complainant’s grievance was that he is owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.42/1B, and though he had not filed any application for the drip irrigation facility for his land during 2009-10, the respondent had created - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13733-DB WP No. 105189 of 2023 false application in his name, produced false documents and had withdrawn the amount towards drip irrigation facility. The Tribunal taking note of the entire factual position has rightly come to the conclusion that there is delay in submitting the complaint by the complainant and delay in initiating the enquiry. Admittedly, the incident relates to the year 2009-10, whereas the complaint is filed in the year 2018 and thereafter, the Articles of Charge is issued in the year 2019. From the date of incident, there is delay of nearly ten years in issuing the Articles of Charge and in initiating the enquiry. The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakishan [(1998)4 SCC 154] has rightly concluded that there is delay in initiating the enquiry which caused prejudice to the Officer as well as the State also. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that issuance of articles of charge itself would not give cause of action to the respondent to challenge the same. In the normal course, issuance of charge memo would not give cause of action to challenge before - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13733-DB WP No. 105189 of 2023 a judicial forum. However, when the articles of charge is issued by an incompetent authority or when an enquiry is instituted with an inordinate delay, which depends on the facts of each case, the Court could interfere with such articles of charge. 6. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21