- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35288-DB WP No. 3115 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 3115 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE HON'BLE UPALOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001. 2. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35288-DB WP No. 3115 of 2025 3. SRI. HARSIH KUMAR D., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O LATE DASAPPA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, COTTONPET SUB -DIVISION, B.B.M.P., MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560023. R/AT No.9, 2ND CROSS, R. K. STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020. 4. SRI. HEMANTH D., AGED 61 YEARS, S/O DASAPPA, RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R/AT No.30, 2ND CROSS, A. M. S. LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE- 97. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. CHANDINI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT IN A.No-5131 AND 5132/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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 K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35288-DB WP No. 3115 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S. Chandini, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Sri P.M. Siddamallappa, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Sri A. Hanumanthappa, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. The Upa-Lokayukta is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in Application Nos. 5131 & 5132 of 2023, dated 31.05.2024, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 belonged to the Department of Public Works and, on deputation, were posted to respondent No.2—Urban Development Department, Cottonpet Sub- Division. One Sri K. Shanmuga filed a complaint before the petitioner-Upalokayukta alleging that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had failed to take action against the owner of a property within the jurisdiction of the Cottonpet Sub-Division. The petitioner issued notices to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seeking their replies, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35288-DB WP No. 3115 of 2025 to which respondent No. 3 submitted a reply, while respondent No. 4 did not. Without examination by the Technical Wing, the petitioner submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter ‘Act’), recommending disciplinary action and entrusting an enquiry. 3.1 The respondent-State, in turn, entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter ‘KCS (CCA) Rules’). Subsequently, Articles of Charge were issued on 16.01.2018 by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 30.08.2021, holding the charge to be proved. Considering the enquiry report, the petitioner recommended imposing the penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. Accordingly, a second show- cause notice was issued on 30.10.2021. These orders were challenged before the Tribunal, which set aside the penalty on two grounds: (i) the enquiry was conducted without examining the complainant; and (ii) the penalty was imposed by an incompetent authority. The present writ petition by the Upa- Lokayukta challenges this order of the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35288-DB WP No. 3115 of 2025 4. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the mere non-examination of the complainant cannot, by itself, be a ground to exonerate the Delinquent Government Servant (‘DGO’) from the charges. Learned counsel further submits that the other evidence on record clearly establishes the charge against the DGOs, who, after issuing the plan for construction, failed to supervise the construction in conformity with the sanctioned plan. It is also submitted that a major penalty was imposed by the borrowing authority, and if the Tribunal was of the view that the penalty was imposed by an incompetent authority, the matter ought to have been remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration. 5. Smt. S. Chandini, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, supports the contention of the petitioner. 6. Sri P.M. Siddamallappa, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, and Sri A. Hanumanthappa, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, submit that the enquiry commenced with the registration of the complaint. They contend that the veracity of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35288-DB WP No. 3115 of 2025 the complaint cannot be properly assessed without examining the complainant. Learned counsel further submit that, in the absence of the complainant’s examination to substantiate the allegations, the conclusion of the enquiry, based solely on the evidence of PW-1 (the Notary who notarized the complaint) and PW-2 (the Public Prosecutor, who functioned as Scrutiny Officer in the Lokayukta), is not sufficient. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers filed in the writ petition. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we note that the complaint was filed by Sri K. Shanmuga, alleging that necessary steps were not taken against the owner of the property. The complaint is marked as Annexure-A1. The allegation therein pertains to construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, without maintaining the requisite setbacks. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding the charge proved, without examining the complainant. There is no material on record to indicate that any notice was issued to the complainant to appear and depose in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35288-DB WP No. 3115 of 2025 disciplinary enquiry. PW-1, the advocate and Notary, was examined to identify the complainant; however, he deposed that he could not identify the complainant due to the lapse of time. Unless the complainant is examined in the witness box, the Deli1nquent Government Officer is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine and elicit the truth. PW-2, the Scrutiny Officer in the Lokayukta office, had no personal knowledge regarding the construction of the building. In the circumstances, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 is insufficient to sustain the charge against the DGOs. 9. Another aspect that requires note is that the earlier enquiry, initially pending with ARE-3, was subsequently transferred to ARE-12. The DGOs were not issued any notice regarding the transfer of the enquiry. 10. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of examination of the complainant, the charge cannot be regarded as proved. Upon examining the evidence of PWs-1 and 2, as well as the findings in the enquiry report, we are in agreement with the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal. No other document, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35288-DB WP No. 3115 of 2025 evidence, or ground has been brought to our notice that would warrant interference with the Tribunal’s finding. 11. Another contention raised pertains to the competence of respondent No. 2, being the borrowing department, to impose the penalty. It is contended that only the parent department possesses the authority to impose such penalty. Be that as it may, in view of our finding confirming the setting aside of the penalty on the grounds of non-examination of the complainant and insufficiency of evidence, the question of competence of respondent No.2 to levy penalty is left open. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.:22