- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36350-DB WP No. 24372 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH 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. 24372 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N. RAVEENDRA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O NANJUNDCHARY, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KYLANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101, R/AT No.852, NGO'S COLONY, AROHALLY EXTENSION, KOLAR-563101. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36350-DB WP No. 24372 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.4580/2019, AS PER ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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. B. S. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned AGA for respondent No.2. 2. The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 10.02.2022 in Application No. 4580/2019, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru. 3. A complaint was filed by Sri M. Basavaraj before the petitioner against Respondent No.1 on 01.02.2008, alleging irregularities in certain purchases. In response to the notice issued by the petitioner dated 26.02.2008, Respondent No.1 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36350-DB WP No. 24372 of 2023 submitted a reply. The petitioner, by report dated 25.01.2019 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter "the Act"), recommended the initiation of a disciplinary enquiry and the entrustment of the same to the petitioner. Respondent No.2, by order dated 08.04.2019, entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner-institution. Articles of charge were subsequently issued on 18.06.2019. Respondent No.1 filed an application before the Tribunal, challenging both the entrustment of the enquiry and the articles of charge. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside the entrustment and the articles of charge on the ground of delay. 4. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order of the Tribunal is passed without due consideration of the materials on record. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into account the serious allegations levelled against Respondent No.1. Learned counsel further contends that the enquiry is in conformity with Rule 214(2)(b)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR). It is also submitted that the delay of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36350-DB WP No. 24372 of 2023 ten years in submitting the report under Section 12(3) of the Act is attributable to several correspondences. 5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for Respondent No.2, supports the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ papers, we note that the incident in question dates back to 2007, and the complaint was filed on 01.02.2008, to which Respondent No.1 submitted a reply. However, the petitioner submitted the report under Section 12(3) of the Act only on 25.01.2019, nearly ten years thereafter. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570], considered the necessity of concluding a departmental enquiry and the plausible prejudice caused to both parties due to delay in its conclusion. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36350-DB WP No. 24372 of 2023 "9. … It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing. …" 8. Further in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, [(1998) 4 SCC 154], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held under: 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36350-DB WP No. 24372 of 2023 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." 9. In view of the enunciation of law regarding the requirement to conclude a departmental enquiry within a reasonable time, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner has failed to offer any explanation for the delay of nearly ten years in submitting the report under Section 12(3) of the Act. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36350-DB WP No. 24372 of 2023 10. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16