- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48036-DB WP No. 13794 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. 13794 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI P. V. RUDRAPPA, S/O LATE PUJARA VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KODAANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MOYAGONDA HOBLI, DAVANGERE(TALUK) AND (DISTRICT) - 577 534, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48036-DB WP No. 13794 of 2025 R/O NO. 900/03, HYTAK HOSPITAL ROAD, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SHAKTHI NAGAR, DAVANGERE - 577 511. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA, FOR R1) 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 WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08 AUGUST, 2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT IN A.No-1864/2017 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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:48036-DB WP No. 13794 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta - respondent No.2 in Application No.1864/2017 is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra partly allowed the application and set-aside the order dated 25.02.2017 and directed the applicant to submit the order of acquittal passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge (Lokayukta) at Davanagere in Special (Lokayukta) Case No.03/2012 before the first respondent within one month from date of order and the first respondent has been directed to consider the reply of the applicant to the second show cause notice keeping in mind the acquittal of applicant in criminal case and pass a fresh order. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48036-DB WP No. 13794 of 2025 3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- The applicant approached the Tribunal in Application No.1864/2017 calling in question the order of penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 25.02.2017 passed by the first respondent. The case of the applicant before the Tribunal was that the order of dismissal comes to be passed on 25.02.2017, whereas the order of acquittal by the Sessions Court was passed on 30.01.2017, however he could not place the same before the Government, in response to the second show cause notice along with his reply, prior to passing the order of dismissal. 4. The respondents - the State as well as Karnataka Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. 5. The Tribunal in consideration of the Judgment of acquittal of applicant in the Criminal case and relying on its earlier judgment, comes to a conclusion that there is no proper consideration of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48036-DB WP No. 13794 of 2025 reply by the first respondent and having come to such conclusion, proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order impugned therein and directed the applicant to furnish the copy of the acquittal before respondent No.1 and has directed respondent No.1 to reconsider the reply of the applicant to the second show cause notice keeping in mind the order of acquittal and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a time bound manner, by its order dated 08.08.2018. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by the Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by six years eight months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ papers. 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by six years eight months, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48036-DB WP No. 13794 of 2025 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 and 227 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 six years eight months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48036-DB WP No. 13794 of 2025 writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. 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 ct-vn