- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48028-DB WP No. 28003 of 2025 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. 28003 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, MS BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES -9, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP), VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48028-DB WP No. 28003 of 2025 3. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N. R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001. 4. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIAH V. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O VEERA REDDY, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ON DEPUTATION TO BRIHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, O/o THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RI (SOUTH) R/A No.65, 1ST MAIN 16TH CROSS, GOPALAPPA LAYOUT, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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 OCTOBER 06, 2020 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No-1303/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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:48028-DB WP No. 28003 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta and its Additional Registrar - respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Application No.1303/2018 are in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 06.10.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed the application and set-aside the order of entrustment dated 26.12.2017 and the articles of charge dated 20.01.2018, reserving liberty to the Karnataka Upa- Lokayukta to communicate to the applicant and others and the competent authorities concerned regarding the opinion recorded by him to initiate investigation against the applicant and others and seek their comments and proceed further in accordance with law. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48028-DB WP No. 28003 of 2025 3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- The applicant was working as Assistant Executive Engineer as on the date of filing of application before the Tribunal. He has approached the Tribunal in Application No.1303/2018 calling in question the order of entrustment of enquiry and issuance of articles of charge thereon. The applicant has contended that, on a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging misappropriation with respect to certain works carried on by the applicant and another for the period 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Karnataka Lokayukta forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'Act of 1984') to the Government seeking to entrust the inquiry. The Government upon consideration of report, passed an order under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules, 1957). Subsequent to the entrustment, inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer thereafter issued the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48028-DB WP No. 28003 of 2025 impugned articles of charge against the applicant (Annexure-A9). The main contention of the applicant before the Tribunal was that there is non-consideration of his reply, with respect to non-supplying of technical investigation report, to office not requiring the applicant to submit his explanation to the complaint by the Karnataka Lokayukta. As such the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, is not sustainable in law and the Government on the report without considering the other materials, proceeded mechanically and without application of mind, entrusted the inquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules. He has further stated that though a joint inquiry has been contemplated, however no orders has been passed under Rule 13 of CCA Rules. To buttress his stand, the applicant placed reliance on the Judgment of Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.29818 & 56278/2013. 4. The respondent State as well as Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48028-DB WP No. 28003 of 2025 5. The Tribunal upon consideration of the entire material placed before it and rival submissions of the parties was of the opinion that the applicant and others before the Tribunal have made out a case to interfere with the order of entrustment and articles of charge issued thereon. Having come to such conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order with liberty stated supra, by its order dated 06.10.2020. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by four years eleven months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the entire writ papers. 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years eleven months, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. In these circumstances, the writ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48028-DB WP No. 28003 of 2025 petition is hit not only by delay but by laches too. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 is called upon to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction. 8. The petitioner is not an exception to the case, when there is delay and laches in approaching the Court, than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis as the delay defeats all the rights. On scrutiny of the entire case papers, we find no reason to condone the enormous delay. This Court, if it ignores the obvious and enormous delay, will foster injustice, as it is likely to affect others. A finality attained cannot be permitted to be reopened if there is unreasonable lapse of time. The unexplained delay of four years eleven months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48028-DB WP No. 28003 of 2025 9. 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 TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7