- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25704-DB WP No. 11467 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH 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. 11467 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA PARK HOUSE BENGALURU-560001. 3. SRI D BASAVANAGOUDA S/O D KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R/AT 4225/18, 8TH CROSS SIDDAVEERAPPA COLONY DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25704-DB WP No. 11467 of 2023 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15/06/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.6045/2017, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. 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 S.G.PANDIT) The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2020 in Application No.6045/22017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) setting aside the order of punishment dated 14.08.2017 (Annexure-A7) imposing reduction of pension by 10% permanently and recovery of Rs.68,263/- from the retirement benefits of respondent No.1 is quashed. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25704-DB WP No. 11467 of 2023 Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for petitioner would submit that the third respondent was before the Tribunal questioning Annexure-A7, Government order dated 14.08.2017 (Annexure-A7) wherein the respondent No.3 was imposed with punishment of reduction of pension by 10% permanently under Rule 214(1)(A) of KCSRs and recovery of a sum of Rs.68,263/- from his retirement benefits. The Tribunal on hearing the parties to the Application, allowed Application quashing impugned order of punishment dated 14.08.2017 (Annexure-A7) with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the reply submitted by the applicant i.e., respondent No.3 and to consider the contentions independently and to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25704-DB WP No. 11467 of 2023 4. It is the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Tribunal has directed to examine the contentions of the third respondent independently, would mean that reply of the respondent No.3 is to be considered. Without referring to the recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta forwarded with the enquiry report. Further, learned counsel would submit that the apprehension of the petitioner is since the Tribunal has referred to decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS VS. KHARAK SINGH1. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the Disciplinary Authority cannot independently examine the contentions of the third respondent without referring or considering the recommendation of the Lokayukta which is the statutory obligation of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 1 2008 AIR SCW 7507 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25704-DB WP No. 11467 of 2023 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). Thus, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority is bound to consider the recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta made in terms of Rule 14A(2)(d) of CCA Rules. When the enquiry is entrusted to the Lokayukta under Rule 14A of CCA Rules and when the enquiry is conducted by the Lokyukta and the enquiry report is forwarded along with the recommendation of the Lokayukkta in terms of Rule 14A(2)(d) of CCA Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to take note of the recommendations of the Lokayukta and the apprehension of the petitioner is contrary to Rule 14A of CCA Rules. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25704-DB WP No. 11467 of 2023 6. The facts of the KHARAK SINGH (supra) would have no application to the present case as there was no recommendation of Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta in KHARAK SINGH (supra). 7. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3