- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 9149 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDINGS DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI R S RAWAL S/O SHAMBUNATHA G RAWAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETRIED SENIOR GEOLOGIST R/AT NO 3, GURUKRUPA 26TH CROSS, BAGALAKUNTE BENGALURU 560073. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH B., AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2023 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BANGALORE IN A.No-3282/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-B. 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:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The Karnataka Lokayukta has preferred this petition calling in question the Order dated 19.10.2023 in Application No.3282/2022 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The first respondent has filed this application with the Tribunal being aggrieved by the second respondent's Order dated 27.02.2020, and the second respondent, accepting the report filed on entrustment under Section 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, 'the CCA Rules'] has imposed penalty on the first respondent stipulating reduction in the timescale of pay by two lower stages with cumulative effect. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 2. The first respondent was working as a 'Senior Geologist' when he is served with the charge memo dated 15.12.2017 with the imputation that when he was working as a Senior Geologist with the Department of Mines and Geology at Gadag, he failed to prevent illegal mining in certain lands of Mevundi Village, Mundaragi Taluk, Gadag District and that his failure had enabled illegal mining to continue till the year 2014. The imputation is alleging that the first respondent had only filed the First Information against the concerned and that he had taken no further action. In the enquiry proceedings undertaken by the petitioner, with the entrustment under Rule 14A of the CCA Rules, the Investigating Officer is examined as PW1 and the complainant's son is examined as PW2. The first respondent has not let in evidence but has participated in the proceedings cross-examining the witnesses. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 3. The Inquiry Report is that the Investigating Officer who is examined as PW1 is consistent in his case that the first respondent had failed to take action which had resulted in continuation of illegal mining and that the documents corroborate the consistent version by PW1. The second respondent, as a disciplinary authority, after the second show cause notice and reply by the first respondent, has passed the impugned punishment order dated 27.02.2020, holding that the Inquiry Report against the first respondent is proper and that the written explanation by the first respondent cannot be accepted. 4. The Tribunal has interfered with the second respondent's impugned order dated 27.02.2020 while referring to the decision of the Apex Court on the scope of judicial review in the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the conclusion that the Courts do not sit in appeal over the findings - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 or assess the evidence but will only examine whether the evidence let in the inquiry proceedings substantiate the imputation against the officer. The Tribunal has opined that the second respondent's impugned order dated 27.02.2020 is notwithstanding there being no evidence of the imputation against the first respondent. 5. Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal has erred in opining that there is no evidence because the Tribunal has failed to consider two salient facts viz., [a] though the first respondent has filed the first information resulting in penal proceedings against those who are involved in illegal mining, he has not taken further action and [b] there was a breach of a check dam because the illegal mining continued even in the year 2014. The learned counsel underscores that these show that the first respondent was in the office as a Senior Geologist in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 Gadag during the relevant time and that there was illegal mining. 6. Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K S contends that in the light of these circumstances, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the second respondent's order opining that the second respondent's order is despite there being no evidence. The learned counsel proposes to rely upon the proposition that the Courts will not intervene with the outcome in the disciplinary proceedings when there is evidence and that examination of sufficiency of evidence would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which would not be within the scope of judicial review in a departmental proceeding. 7. Sri. Manjunath B, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of these submissions observing that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the Courts will not sit over the outcome in the disciplinary proceedings - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 as an appellate Court and that the power of judicial review is exercised in matters of disciplinary proceedings when it could be reasonably opined that the outcome against the concerned delinquent is despite there being no evidence. The core of the imputation against the first respondent is that he did not take further action apart from filing the First Information Report, and this has resulted in the continuation of illegal mining even in the year 2014. 8. The Tribunal has opined that there is no evidence in support of this implication because [i] the complainant's son has turned hostile and does not support the charge against the first respondent, [ii] the complaint filed in the prescribed form with affidavits [Exhibit-P1 and Exhibit-P2] as contemplated under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, do not mention the first respondent, [iii] PW1, in his cross- examination, has stated that as part of the preliminary inquiry, the officials from the Mines and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 Geology Department have produced complaint, mahazar and the other documents relating to illegal mining between the years 2011 and 2014 and the First Information Report is registered based on those documents, but those documents are not part of the present proceedings, [iv] he has not placed on record the period during which the first respondent was working as a Senior Geologist in Gadag nor he has examined the measurements of the quarrying in the concerned lands, and [v] he has not enquired into allocation of work within the Mines and Geology Department. 9. Crucially, the Tribunal has observed that PW1 has not stated either in his evidence or in his preliminary report about the specific acts of omission and commission by the first respondent, and it is in the light of these circumstances, the Tribunal has opined that there is no evidence of dereliction of duty that would translate into a misconduct for which - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 there could be penalty. This Court opines that unless these are incorrect and contrary to the documents, there cannot be any interference by this Court, and nothing is invited to this Court's attention to say that the Tribunal’s finding on the afore is contrary to the material on record. This Court further opines that merely because there could be a breach in a check dam, possibly because of illegal mining within its vicinity, the first respondent cannot be found culpable unless a nexus is shown between the first respondent working as a Senior Geologist and the alleged breach to establish that there was dereliction of duty by him. As such, this Court finds no reason for interference. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER The petition stands rejected, but directing the second respondent to pay consequential benefits to the first - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47893-DB WP No. 9149 of 2024 respondent within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-