- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 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.26083 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 023. 3. SRI. N.NANJEGOWDA, S/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, (NOW UNDER ORDER OF PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE), Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 of 2024 BASARALU HOBLI, CHIKKABALLI CIRCLE, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 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 22-01-2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.6406/2016, 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta, by its Registrar is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 22.01.2018, in Application No.6406/2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘KSAT’ for short), partly allowing the application, modifying the order of dismissal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 of 2024 from service to compulsory retirement, with a direction to settle all pension benefits 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 the filing of the present petition are as under: 4. While the applicant was working as Village Accountant in the Department of Revenue in Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, on an allegation of demand of Rs.2,000/- as an illegal gratification for doing some official favour, that is for change of Khatha of land belonging to the complainant, a complaint came to be registered against the applicant. The police wing of the petitioner laid a successful trap on 20.09.2007. A criminal case was registered on the basis of the FIR, which culminated in filing charge sheet before the Special Court in Special Case No.1/2009. 5. In view of a criminal case registered against the applicant, an order was issued by the first respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 of 2024 entrusting Departmental enquiry to the petitioner, in terms of Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘CCA Rules’ for short). 6. Upon entrustment, a charge memo came to be issued on 09.05.2011, and the enquiry against the applicant commenced. However, it took nearly four years to conclude the enquiry. Ultimately the enquiry officer on 07.11.2015, concluded the enquiry, holding that the charges leveled against the applicant have been proved and submitted the report to the petitioner. The petitioner forwarded the report along with the recommendation to the Government. The Government after receipt of the report with recommendation, issued a second show cause notice against the applicant. The applicant submitted his reply in the year 2016, to be precise on 24.03.2016. Thereafter the impugned order came to be passed by the Government on 01.06.2016, dismissing the applicant from service. 7. In the meanwhile, the criminal case registered against the applicant by the Karnataka Lokayukta ended in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 of 2024 acquittal on 26.06.2014. Though the same was brought to the notice of the enquiry officer as well as the Government, the same was not considered either by the enquiry officer or by the Government. The applicant aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 01.06.2016, was before the Tribunal in the Application No.6406/2016. 8. The applicant submitted his main arguments, on the basis of acquittal in the criminal case, contending that the evidence as well as the documents relied on by the enquiry officer are similar to that of the criminal case. The criminal case ended in an acquittal and as such sought for exoneration from the departmental enquiry. The said submissions of the applicant was opposed by the Government as well as the petitioner on the premise that the Assessment in the departmental inquiry, on the basis of evidence available before it is on preponderance of probabilities, whereas in the criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt, as such both are altogether on a distinct line having no bearing on one another. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 of 2024 9. Before the Tribunal the applicant filed an affidavit which is reflected in paragraph No.7 of the order stating his family status and the financial difficulties that his family has been undergoing and sought for a lenient view in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which was opposed by the Government, on the premise the case is relating to corruption by demanding illegal gratification for an official favour. 10. Having considered the length of time taken by the department in entrusting the inquiry for an incident which had occurred in the year 2007, which has taken nearly four years and thereafter Lokayukta, to conclude the proceedings by issuance of charge memo has taken another four years and almost one year lapsed thereafter, in passing the final order, the Tribunal has taken a lenient view given the factual matter of the case on hand. 11. The Tribunal considering the inordinate delay in enquiry, has come to a conclusion that the applicant has got - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 of 2024 only two months of service before his superannuation, immediately prior to passing of the order and as he is the sole breadwinner of the family, and as the departmental inquiry has taken nearly nine years for its conclusion, from the date of incident, which is against the CCA Rules, which demands the inquiry be initiated and concluded, as early as possible for a proper/appropriate decision. This made the Tribunal to take a lenient view, in allowing the application in part, thereby modifying the order of dismissal to compulsory retirement, directing the Government to settle all the benefits in a time-bound manner. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, called in question, by the petitioner before us though the State is a party before the Tribunal, after a considerable delay of six years, eight months. 12. Heard Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy K.S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the entire writ petition papers. 13. Though, Sri.Mallikarjun had contended several contentions on the department inquiry, which have not been - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 of 2024 interfered with by the Tribunal, but to the query of the Court regarding explanation for the delay caused in filing the present petition belatedly, by six years eight months, except the contentions taken in paragraph No.2.14 of the writ petition, on the ground of advent of COVID-19 pandemic, no plausible explanation is found worth considering the delay in approaching this Court. 14. Sri.Reddy is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the inordinate delay caused in filing the petition. In the circumstances, the petition is hit not only by delay but by latches too. 15. The petitioner is not an exception to the case, when there is delay and latches 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48281-DB WP No. 26083 of 2024 permitted to be reopened if there is unreasonable lapse of time. The unexplained delay of six years eight months is fatal to the case. 16. We find the delay is not only in preferring the petition, but there is inordinate delay for a decision to entrust the matter, thereafter in the conclusion of enquiry resulting in the order of dismissal by the State Government, which took nearly nine years. This inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings in our considered opinion, justifies the Tribunal's order in modifying the order of dismissal to the compulsory retirement. On these counts, 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.: 1 Sl No.: 5