- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53196-DB WP No. 18022 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH 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. 18022 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRSENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTEMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. SRI. G.L. MARKANDAIAH, S/O LATE LAKSHMEGOWDA, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53196-DB WP No. 18022 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINER (RTD) KENGERI SUB-DIVISIOON, BBMP, NO.9, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE, R/AT NO. 1417, 23RD MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND 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 7TH DAY AUGUST, 2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 4026/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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:53196-DB WP No. 18022 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta - respondent No.3 in Application No.4026/2019 is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 07.08.2020 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 dated 04.05.2019 passed by the first respondent (Annexure-A17) in so far as it relates to the applicant and further directed the Government to pay all consequential benefits including monetary benefits to which the applicant is legally entitled to, in a time bound manner. 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:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53196-DB WP No. 18022 of 2024 The applicant approached the Tribunal in Application No.4026/2019 calling in question the order of penalty of withholding 10% of monthly pension for a period of five years against the applicant on the premise that no fair opportunity has been given to the applicant in terms of Rule 11(18) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules, 1957'). He has further stated that the copy of the confirmation of the penalty order issued by KPSC to the disciplinary authority has not been furnished to him before imposition of the penalty. With this, the applicant sought to allow the application and set- aside the order of penalty. 4. The respondent-State as well as Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. 5. The Tribunal upon consideration of the entire material placed on record and hearing the rival contentions, relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53196-DB WP No. 18022 of 2024 Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS S.K.KAPOOR reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 has opined that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty without considering the legal aspects stated in paragraph No.9 of the Judgment in UNION OF INDIA supra. The Tribunal besides the above further held that the Enquiry Officer has not observed Rule 11(18) of CCA Rules 1957 and as such, the order of disciplinary authority imposing penalty without considering the reply submitted by the applicant is unsustainable in law. Having held, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order of punishment and further directed the Government to pay all consequential benefits including monetary benefits to which the applicant is legally entitled to, in a time bound manner, by its order dated 07.08.2020. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by three years ten months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53196-DB WP No. 18022 of 2024 learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 & 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by three years ten 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. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53196-DB WP No. 18022 of 2024 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 three years ten months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. In view of disposal of writ petition, pending I.A if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2 ct-vn