- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.10891 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND, WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUIDLING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATION AND BUILDINGS (SOUTH), K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 4. SRI. S.N. DAYANANDA S/O NANJUNDAIAH, R/AT NO. 106, B-4, KRISHNA BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN A.NO.1360/2018. B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.1360/2018 (ANNEXURE-B). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 T.M.NADAF) This petition is by the Registrar – Karnataka Lokayukta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the order dated 11.09.2019 in application No.1360/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal allowed the application, set aside the order impugned therein dated 30.01.2017 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A11, in respect of applicant/private respondent herein, reserving liberty to the disciplinary authority to consider the reply submitted by private respondent for second issue cause notice and take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. 2. The parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial court for easy reference. 3. A Brief outline of the facts leading to filing of present petition are as under: The applicant has been appointed as Assistant Engineer in Public Works and Irrigation Department vide order dated 04.12.1982. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer vide order dated 09.09.2005. From June 2006 till 2010, the applicant was posted in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayath Raj Sub-Division, Hunsuru, Mysuru District. Thereafter, since 2011 till the date of filing the application before the Tribunal, he was deputed to Bruhat - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and at the time of filing the application, he was working as AEE, Cottonpet Sub-division, BBMP, Bengaluru. On the basis of complaint lodged by Sri Nagarajappa, Vijaganahalli, in respect of improvement of road work carried during the year 2010, while the applicant was working as AEE in Panchayath Raj Sub-division, Hunsuru, Mysuru District from Uddur to M.B. Road of Hunsur Taluk, respondent No.2 i.e., State of Karnataka, Rural Development Panchayath Raj Department decided to hold a disciplinary action against the applicant and five others. Accordingly, entrusted the matter to Respondent No.3/petitioner – Lokayukta herein. On 30.05.2014, respondent No.3 (petitioner herein) framed articles of charges on the applicant and others, calling upon the applicant in particular to submit his written statement of defense failing which enquiry will be proceeded and determined ex-parte. The applicant submitted his reply and after holding an enquiry, the enquiry officer has submitted the enquiry report holding that the charges against the applicant as well as other DGOs have been proved. The second show cause notice was issued by the State Government against the applicant by furnishing the copy of enquiry report, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 to which, the applicant has submitted his detailed reply as per Annexure – A10 dated 21.10.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.2/State/ Disciplinary Authority has taken a decision to reduce the time scale of pay as against the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant approached the Tribunal in application No.1360/2018. 4. The applicant before the Tribunal has contended that the other DGOs’ against whom the punishment was imposed, have already approached the Tribunal in Application No.1367/2017 connected with Application Nos.2493 and 2496/2017 and the Tribunal having considered the application, allowed the same and set aside the impugned order and sought to allow the application in the same line. 5. Respondent - State as well as the respondent – Lokayukta (petitioner herein) orally objected to the application submitting that, there is a misappropriation of the amount to the tune of Rs.1,59,852/-. The charges have been proved against the applicant as well as the other DGOs, as such, the application is required to be rejected. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 6. The Tribunal having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration of the order passed by the Tribunal in the other connected applications filed by the other DGOs stated supra, allowed the application, set aside the order are bearing No.¯ÉÆÃE ¸ÉÃE« 2015 dated 30.01.2017 passed by 1st respondent as per Annexure – A11, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by reserving liberty to the disciplinary authority to consider the reply submitted by the applicant to the second show cause notice and take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. 7. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is under challenge in this writ petition. 8. Heard Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/lokayukta and Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the matter was listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of both the counsels, the same was taken up for final disposal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 9. Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with all vehemence submitted that, the Tribunal has failed to consider the misappropriation of the amount to the tune of Rs.1,59,852/-. The applicant being Assistant Executive Engineer responsible for the said misappropriation. The allegations made against the applicant as well as the other DGOs have been proved in the enquiry and the enquiry officer has filed the report holding that the allegations made against the applicant as well as the other DGOs has been proved by the disciplinary authority. The Government, taking into consideration the report and the recommendation of the petitioner, issued a second show-cause notice. After furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and subsequently considering the reply to the second show cause notice, the Government passed the order impugned in the application. That order being just and proper, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with it and accordingly, the counsel sought to allow the petition. 10. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents with all vehemence submitted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 that the Government has not filed any writ petition calling in question the order passed by the Tribunal. So also the Government has not filed any writ petition against the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the applications filed by the other DGOs. 11. To the query of this Court, Sri. Venkatesh S Arbatti submitted that the petitioner has not preferred any petition against the order of the Tribunal by the other DGOs. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire petition papers; the only question that would arise for our consideration is: Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the application and setting aside the order impugned therein, remanding the matter and reserving the liberty to the Government to consider the reply to second show cause notice and take a fresh decision thereon in accordance with law? 13. Our answer to the above point of consideration is in ‘affirmative’ for the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 REASONS : 14. This Court, in a number of cases, has held that when the Tribunal passes an order, particularly while keeping the enquiry report alive and remanding the matter for fresh consideration and when such an order is not challenged by the Government, the Lokayukta has no locus to call in question the order passed by the Tribunal. In the same line, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.202786/2022 has taken the same view that, in the absence of a challenge by the Government, the petitioner – Lokayukta, has no locus to challenge the order of the Tribunal. 15. It is germane to note here that the other DGOs who approached the Tribunal in the application stated supra, calling in question the order passed by the disciplinary authority, ended in allowing the application and setting aside the order. Both the Government as well as the petitioner herein have not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the orders passed on the applications stated supra. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37013-DB WP No. 10891 of 2023 16. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material placed before it and also taking into consideration the fact that the applications filed by the other DGOs had been allowed by setting aside the impugned order, extended the same relief to the applicant/private respondent No.4, while retaining the enquiry report and remanding the matter for a fresh decision after considering the reply submitted to the second show-cause notice. 17. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the application and remanding the matter for a fresh consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT: AK