- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35069-DB WP No. 1451 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2024 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: SMT. JAYAMALA W/O RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF C/O RAJKUMAR JEWELLERS PETE BEEDHI, ARKALGUDU, HASSAN - 573 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES - III M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SRI JAGANNATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O MYLARAIAH RETIRED TAHSILDAR Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35069-DB WP No. 1451 of 2024 ARKALGUDU TOWN, PANCHAYATH, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102. 4. SRI D.RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE G.N.DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R/AT NO.312, 4TH MAIN, VHBCS LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA A.K., AGA FOR R1; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FO R2; SRI. N.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. VIJAY KUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO. LOK/INQ/14- A/7/2010/ARE-3 DATED 09/10/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY R2 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO HOLDING THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST DGOS 1 AND 2 (R3 AND 4) IN NOT HAVING BEEN PROVED IS CONCERNED, AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND IN VIOLATION OF THE FINDINGS IN 2(3) REPORT. b) SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE R2 VIDE NO. LOK/ARE-3/ENQ-7/2010 DATED 08/11/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY RECOMMENDING TO DISCHARGE R3 AND 4 AMONG ONE ANOTHER SRI. SURESH BABU WHO IS NOW DECEASED, BE CONFIRMED. c) QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. LOK 254 SeEiVi 2009 BENGALURU DATED 27/12/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE R1 EXONERATING THE R3 AND 4 AND ONE ANOTHER SRI. SURESH BABU WHO IS NOW DECEASED, AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VOID. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35069-DB WP No. 1451 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The petitioner who runs a jewellery shop in the name of Rajalakshmi Jewellers was a complainant before the Karnataka Lokayukta in Complaint No.COMPT/LOK/BCD/405/2008. An investigation was carried out by the Lokayukta under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. After the submission of the preliminary report in respect of the complaint of the petitioner, a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was prepared in accordance with law. The Lokayukta in its report found that there was no material to hold the Disciplinary Enquiry against DGOs 1, 2 and 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) is not based on the evidence. The relevant material and the important evidence have been ignored by the Lokayukta while submitting its report under Section 12(3) and holding that there was no material to substantiate the charge for holding the disciplinary enquiry against DGOs 1, 2 and 3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35069-DB WP No. 1451 of 2024 3. The High Court is exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not the fact finding Authority and do not sit as an Appellate Authority over the enquiry made by the Karnataka Lokayukta. Once the Competent Authority after examining the evidence, has come to the conclusion that, there was no material to substantiate the charges against the delinquent government officials, we cannot re-appreciate the evidence to say that the charges have been proved. There has been no infraction of the law while conducting the investigation and submitting the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. 4. We, therefore find no substance in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17