- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH 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.5457 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU – 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMAKANTH R. KUNTE S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS WORKING AS ASST. DRUGS CONTROLLER (NOW RETIRED) BALIKASHRAMA ROAD, KANKANADI, MANGALORE – 575 001 R/AT NO. 6-33/2, 11TH B CROSS, KODIKAL CROSS, MANGALORE – 575 006. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT. VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA, FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.5692/2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PREMILINARY 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar is in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, calling in question the order - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 dated 24.03.2021 in Application No.5692/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), allowing the application, by setting aside the order impugned dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure-A6) and remitting the matter to the Government to pass orders under Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘the Act of 1984’ for short) after considering report under Section 12(3) with other directions. 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:- The applicant had served as Assistant Drugs Controller at Mysore Circle-1, Mysore from 10.06.2010 to 10.10.2013. A complaint is filed by one Sri.Snehamahi Krishna with the petitioner, alleging failure to discharge duties by one H.M.Kantharaju, Inspector of Police, Devaraja Police Station, registering criminal case against Pavan Distributors. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 The complaint dated 28.05.2014 was forwarded by the Karnataka Lokayukta to the applicant for investigation. However, the applicant failed to take any action to cancel the license of the said distributor, even after the admission by the licensee before the Court. 4. The petitioner after receipt of the complaint took up investigation under Section 9 of Act of 1984 and comes to a conclusion that there is serious misconduct on the part of the applicant, recommended the Government under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 for further action on 08.04.2019. 5. The respondent No.2/Government upon report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 passed an order under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984 entrusting the proceedings under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) (‘CCA Rules’ for short). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 6. Pursuant to the entrustment, petitioner appointed an enquiry officer who issued Articles of Charge on 30.09.2019. The applicant replied to the Articles of Charge denying the same on 27.12.2019. 7. The applicant aggrieved by the order of entrustment and Articles of Charge in furtherance thereof, approached the Tribunal in Application No.5692/2020. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties was of the opinion that there is no application of the mind by the Government while passing order under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, entrusting the enquiry with the petitioner under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, 1957. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the application, set aside the impugned order of entrustment dated 13.05.2019 (Annexures-A6) as well as Articles of Charge dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure- A10), but remitted the matter to the Government to consider the report under Section 12(3) dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 08.04.2019, in accordance with the provision of 12(4) of the Act of 1984 and pass appropriate order thereafter with other reliefs. It is this order, called in question in this petition by the Karnataka Lokayukta. 9. Heard Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.M.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent No.2. 10. Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, with all vehemence submits that the entrustment is just interim order by the Government entrusting the enquiry with the Lokayukta against the delinquent Government official for misconduct. The enquiry is yet to be conducted wherein the applicant would be given appropriate opportunity to defend his case. The Government independent of the report applied its mind while entrusting the matter under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules and the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 11. Refuting the submission of Sri.K Prasanna Shetty, Sri.M.Nagarajan, submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the petition, as the order of entrustment has been set aside and the matter is remitted to the Government to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order thereafter. The entire report under 12(3) has not been out rightly set aside. It is still before the Government to consider. Since the Government has not called the same in question before this Court, the Lokayukta cannot maintain the petition, the reason being, the order of entrustment is set aside on the premise that there is no independent application of mind on the part of Government. It is for the Government to demonstrate application of mind while passing the order under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984. In these circumstances, it is not open for the petitioner to demonstrate application of mind by the Government, while passing order of entrustment. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the order passed by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.46893/2019 (S-KSAT) in the case of Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar Vs. Srinivas and another, dated 12.09.2024 and stressed upon paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment and accordingly, sought to dismiss the petition. 12. Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA fairly submits that Government neither has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal nor any order passed in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, in view of pendency of this petition. 13. Having heard the learned counsel we have gone through the Judgment relied upon by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in Srinivas supra. 14. What is ordered by the Tribunal is only setting aside the order of entrustment which consequentially affected issuance of Articles of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45001-DB WP No. 5457 of 2023 Charge. The matter is still with the Government to take appropriate action, after going through report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984. We are in agreement with the proposition of law taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court cited supra. In these circumstances, we find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal, which requires any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the petition fails and dismissed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34