- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 55422 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDINGS, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, ENQUIRIES-4, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUIDLINGS, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI C.K. NAGARAJ, S/O C.K. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, R/O. NO.113, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 GURUKUL BADAVANE, (NEAR PRESIDENCY SCHOOL) AMARAPURA ROAD, SIRA, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, (V.N.SERVICE-2) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO. APPLICATION NO.3977/2013 DATED 15.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The third and fourth respondent - Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar in Application No.3977/2013, before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), are in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question order dated 15.11.2017. The Tribunal, by the impugned order allowed the application and set aside the order of entrustment of departmental enquiry vide order dated 05.09.2012 (Annexure-A6), issued by the second respondent and quashed the consequential Articles of charge framed against the applicant and continuation of the departmental enquiry. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under: The applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.3977/2013, calling in question the order of entrustment dated 05.09.2012, issued by the second respondent and the consequential Articles of charge and continuation of the departmental enquiry, on the premise that the criminal case on the very same set of allegations ended in an acquittal. He further contended that the judgment of the Sessions Court especially in paragraph No.17 in Spl.C.No.163/2006 clearly indicates that the acquittal is an honorable acquittal, which has got a bearing on the departmental enquiry. The applicant further submitted that there was no departmental proceedings held against him till the acquittal order is passed. It is only after the acquittal order, the Government in haste, passed an order entrusting the departmental enquiry, against the applicant that too - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 after lapse of six and a half years, is unsustainable and operates as hardship on the applicant. With this the applicant sought to allow the application, quashing the order of entrustment and the consequential issuance of Articles of charge and continuation of the departmental enquiry against him. The respondent and Karnataka Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. 4. The Tribunal upon consideration of the material placed on record and the rival submissions placed by the parties before it, came to a conclusion that the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court is a honorable acquittal in as much as relying on Paragraph No.1 of the Judgment and further that there was no departmental enquiry initiated against the applicant till the disposal of case before the Sessions Court, and it is only after the disposal of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 case before the Sessions Court, the departmental enquiry initiated, belatedly by six and a half years, is not sustainable in law. 5. The Tribunal further opined that there is no inhibition to initiate a departmental enquiry along with a criminal case and having held so, the Tribunal formed an opinion that the initiation of departmental enquiry long after the registration of the criminal case is bad in law. Further the Tribunal has observed that there is no examination of report submitted by Upa- Lokayukta in terms of Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 while passing an order under Section 12(4) of the said Act. The Government, without application of mind, in a routine casual manner entrusted the enquiry, as such, the same is unsustainable in law. Having held so, the Tribunal relying on the judgment in Application No.725/2014 in the case of H.N.NIRANJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA dated 27.11.2014, proceeded to allow - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 the application and set aside the order of entrustment dated 05.09.2012 vide Annexure-A6 and the consequential Articles of charge, so also quashed the proceedings in departmental enquiry by its order dated 15.11.2017. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by the third and fourth respondents-Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar, belatedly by one year one month in the present petition. 6. Heard, Sri.Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the second and third respondent. 7. Sri. Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, is unable to answer when queried regarding the effect of the order of acquittal is concerned, in view of findings of the Sessions Court at paragraph No.17 of the Judgment in Spl.C.No.163/2006. Besides this, the learned counsel is also unable to answer why the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 departmental enquiry was not held along with the criminal case and initiation of the departmental enquiry belatedly by six and a half years. 8. The Tribunal having considered the impact of honorable acquittal and the non-application of mind by the Government while exercising power under Section 12(4), allowed the application. 9. A perusal of order passed by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal having considered the entire material with valid reasons allowed the application, considering the case both on merits and delay. We find that besides delay in approaching this Court, there is a delay in holding departmental enquiry over a period of six and a half years. The delay caused in holding enquiry not only goes against the public interest so also it causes immense hardship on the Government official and amounting to hanging of Sword of Damocles over his head. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52864-DB WP No. 55422 of 2018 10. The departmental enquiry on the very same set of allegations and facts, on which the criminal case ended in honorable acquittal, cannot be sustained in view of settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases. 11. On scrutiny of entire papers, we find no reason to any contra view than the one taken by the Tribunal. In view of above the petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending I.A's if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 ct-vn