- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH 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.8793 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORT INLAND AND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. SRI GANAPATHI S.SAKHARE S/O SHIVARAM SAKHARE, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PROJECT DIVISION(PMGSY), CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT R/AT 4TH MAIN ROAD, PRASHANTHANAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.M.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2019 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.2320/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE 'C' AND ETC. THIS WRIT 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri K.S. Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Sri H.M. Umesh, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The Karnataka Lokayukta has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.2320/2017 (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 3. The brief facts of the case are that one Ayyappa Hosamani filed a complaint against Sri N.K. Holeyannanavar, Executive Engineer, alleging misappropriation of funds granted for drought relief during the year 2006-07. The petitioner submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 [for short, 'the Act'] on 05.08.2016 recommending initiation of disciplinary enquiry against respondent No.3. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short, 'the KCS (CCA) Rules'] on 07.09.2016, and the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the petitioner on 07.11.2016. Subsequently, articles of charge came to be issued on 07.11.2016. 3.1 Respondent No.3 preferred an application before the Tribunal challenging the order of entrustment as well as the articles of charge. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside both the order of entrustment and the articles of charge - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 on two grounds: firstly, that the incident pertained to the year 2006-07, the complaint was filed in 2008, and the articles of charge were issued only on 07.11.2016 after an inordinate delay of 8 years and 9 months without sufficient explanation; and secondly, that the complaint was directed against Sri N.K. Holeyannanavar, Executive Engineer, PRE Division, Raichur, and not against respondent No.3 herein. 4. Sri K.S. Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that immediately after the complaint was filed, an enquiry was conducted and a report under Section 12(3) of the Act was submitted on 05.08.2016, and without further delay, articles of charge were issued on 07.11.2016. It is therefore his submission that there is no delay in issuance of the articles of charge. Learned counsel further contends that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the petitioner, misappropriation was attributed to respondent No.3, and accordingly, the articles of charge were rightly issued against him. It is his further submission that the Tribunal, without considering the aforesaid aspects, has erroneously set aside the order of entrustment and the articles of charge. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, supporting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that immediately after submission of the report under Section 12(3) of the Act, an order of entrustment under Rule 14A of the KCS (CCA) Rules was passed, followed by the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and framing of articles of charge. Hence, it is submitted that there is no delay in initiating the enquiry proceedings. 6. Sri H.M. Umesh, learned counsel for respondent No.3, supporting the impugned order, submits that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2006-07 and the complaint, filed in 2008, was against Sri N.K. Holeyannanavar and not against respondent No.3. Hence, the enquiry and the order of entrustment as against respondent No.3 are without any basis. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1, without considering these aspects, has erroneously passed the order of entrustment under Rule 14A of the KCS (CCA) Rules. It is his submission that the Tribunal, having taken note of the above circumstances, has rightly passed the impugned order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 7. On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons. 7.1 The incident pertains to the year 2006-07 and is alleged to have been committed by Sri N.K. Holeyannanavar, Executive Engineer. The allegation relates to misappropriation of funds released for drought relief during the said period, in respect of which a complaint was filed on 29.02.2008. Though the complaint was received by the petitioner on 29.02.2008, the report came to be submitted only on 05.08.2016, after a lapse of nearly eight years. No explanation has been offered for the delay in initiation of proceedings. 7.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan1 has enunciated the legal principle regarding the necessity of expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and the potential prejudice that may be caused both to the delinquent Government official and the disciplinary authority. The relevant extract reads as follows: 1 1998 (4) SCC 154 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 "19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations." 7.3 In light of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that delay in commencing the enquiry would prejudice both the delinquent Government official as well as the petitioner. No plausible - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 explanation is available on record for the delay in submission of the report under Section 12(3) of the Act, which occurred after a lapse of eight years and nine months. The Tribunal was therefore justified in setting aside the order of entrustment and the articles of charge on that ground alone. Merely pointing to the order of entrustment under Rule 14A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, and the issuance of articles of charge does not account for the delay from the date of receipt of the complaint to the initiation of proceedings under Section 12(3) of the Act. 7.4 This writ petition is also liable to be rejected for another reason. The order of the Tribunal is dated 26.06.2019, whereas the present writ petition was filed on 15.04.2023, i.e., nearly four years thereafter. No explanation has been offered for the delay in preferring the writ petition. Although no specific limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition, the right to approach this Court must be exercised within a reasonable time. A period of four years cannot be regarded as a reasonable time for entertaining the present writ petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39140-DB WP No. 8793 of 2023 7.5 On a specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to offer any acceptable explanation for entertaining this writ petition after a delay of more than four years. It is a settled position of law that any grievance must be agitated or sought to be redressed at the earliest opportunity. In the present case, the inordinate delay of four years cannot be condoned. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3