- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31798-DB WP No. 264 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 264 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-4, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH T. B., S/O BORAPPA T. L., AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, HALAKURUKE POST, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DIST.-572 201. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31798-DB WP No. 264 of 2022 2. SRI N. SHIVANANDAPPA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, R/AT NAGASHREE NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, REVANA SIDDAPPA BADAVANE, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DIST.-572 201. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMKUR DIST. -567 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R3; V/O DATED 14.11.2024 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2020 IN APPLICATION No. 1323-1324/2017 PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXUE-B). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31798-DB WP No. 264 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners-Karnataka Lokayukta authorities are before this Court questioning the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') allowing the applications of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and quashing the common order of entrustment of enquiry dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure-A9) and also the Articles of Charge dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure-A10). 2. Heard learned counsel Sri. K.Prasanna Shetty for the petitioners, learned counsel Sri. Vijaya Kumar for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga for respondent Nos.3, and perused the entire writ petition papers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31798-DB WP No. 264 of 2022 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in addition to the grounds raised in the petition would submit that the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the order of entrustment of enquiry as well as the Articles of Charge in respect of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal proceeded to quash the Charge Memo as well as the order of entrustment of enquiry on the ground that there was proceedings before the Ombudsman and when once the proceedings are initiated before the Ombudsman, the proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Lokayukta Act ought not to have been initiated. Learned counsel would submit that the said contention is contrary to the settled position of law. Learned counsel would further submit that the consequences of both the proceedings are entirely different and the purpose of those enactment is different. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal could not have quashed the order of entrustment of enquiry as well as the Articles of Charge. Further, learned counsel would submit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31798-DB WP No. 264 of 2022 that the Tribunal has also assigned the reason that the concurrence of the parent department is not obtained before entrusting the enquiry as well as the drawing up of the Articles of Charge. Learned counsel would further submit that when the Government has passed an order, it is deemed that concurrence of the parent department is said to have been obtained. Thus, learned counsel pray for allowing the petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 referring to the Government order dated 28.02.2024 placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner along with memo dated 18.08.2025 would submit that, the State Government accepting the order passed by the Tribunal has passed consequential order, withdrawing the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 22.12.2016. Further, learned counsel would submit that while the State Government has not filed any writ petition impugning the order of the Tribunal, it is not open for the enquiry authority-the Lokayukta to challenge the same. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31798-DB WP No. 264 of 2022 Further, learned counsel would submit that since the concurrence of parent department is not obtained, the Tribunal is justified in quashing the order of entrustment of enquiry as well as the Articles of Charge. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking note of the fact that both respondent Nos.1 and 2 have retired from service more than two to three years back and issuance of any notice at this length of time, would be prejudicial. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the State Government has not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal quashing the order of entrustment of enquiry as well as the Articles of Charge and on other hand, the State Government to implement the order, has passed Government order dated 28.02.2024 withdrawing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31798-DB WP No. 264 of 2022 order of entrustment of enquiry dated 22.12.2016. Therefore, it is clear that the Government would not intend to proceed any further with regard to respondent Nos.1 and 2. As held by the Tribunal, the concurrence of parent department would be a necessary requirement to initiate enquiry and to take action against respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16