- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46456-DB WP No. 3519 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 3519 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (ENQUIRY-III), KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA- 562 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46456-DB WP No. 3519 of 2025 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (COLLEGE EDUCATION AND GENERAL- II) M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. SRI.M.NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE V. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, VEMAGAL, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. NARASIMHA RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER 31, 2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN APPLICATION NO.4944/2018 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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:46456-DB WP No. 3519 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T M NADAF) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - Karnataka Lokayukta and its Additional Registrar (Enquiry-III) in Application No.4944/2018 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), are in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question order dated 31.10.2019. The Tribunal by order stated supra allowed the application and quashed the order dated 13.10.2015 (Annexure-A6), passed by fifth respondent and order of entrustment dated 16.03.2017 and Articles of charges dated 06.09.2017 and report dated 13.10.2015 vide Annexures-9, 10 and 6 respectively. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- A complaint was filed before the Karnataka Lokayukta against the applicant, alleging that while he was serving as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46456-DB WP No. 3519 of 2025 Principal in Sir M.V.M. Evening College between 1991 and 2009, committed a misconduct by misappropriating the funds allotted to the college by the Government. Further, alleged that the applicant also misappropriated the funds to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- while working as a Principal of Government Women's College for construction of toilets in the Government college sanctioned by the Government. Further, it was alleged that the applicant failed to provide basic infrastructure to the college building and misappropriated the funds sanctioned for executing the said work. Further it was alleged that while he was working in Sir M.V.M Evening College, at the same time he has also worked in Ramakrishna Rural High School and received salary from both the organizations. A notice came to be issued by the Karnataka Lokayukta against the applicant, for which the applicant has submitted his reply. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Technical Department of the Karnataka Lokayukta held an enquiry - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46456-DB WP No. 3519 of 2025 and submitted its report on 29.10.2014, stating that the allegation against the applicant that he worked in two organizations at the same time and received salary from both the organizations to be true. In the meanwhile, the Joint Director upon enquiry against the applicant, inflicted penalty of withholding one increment. On the basis of the investigation report of the Technical Wing, a report came to be forwarded by the Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Government. Upon receipt of report, the first respondent-Government proceeded to entrust the enquiry with the Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short). Pursuant to the entrustment, the fourth respondent issued Articles of charge dated 06.09.2017 against the applicant. Aggrieved by the order of entrustment and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46456-DB WP No. 3519 of 2025 Articles of charge and report, the applicant was before the Karnataka Lokayukta in Application No.4944/2018. The Tribunal upon considering the case of the applicant has held that once the applicant has been found fault by the Joint Director and inflicted with penalty of withholding one increment, cannot be penalized again by conducting an enquiry on a similar set of charge and proceeded to allow the application and set aside the order impugned therein by its order dated 31.10.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by third and fourth respondents in this petition belatedly by five years four months. 4. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for first and second respondents and Sri.Narasimha Raju, learned counsel for third respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by five years - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46456-DB WP No. 3519 of 2025 four 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 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. 6. 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 five years four - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46456-DB WP No. 3519 of 2025 months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7