- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46453-DB WP No. 14331 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 14331 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ADDITIIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRY -15 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. RAMACHANDRA C.A. S/O ANJANEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46453-DB WP No. 14331 of 2023 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, R/AT NO.225, 'A' BLOCK, 8TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE, MYSORE. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (SOUTH) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K.R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA CIRCLE, PARK HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2) 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 A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED JUNE 21, 2019 IN APPLICATION No. 2705/2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT (ANNEXURE A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING '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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46453-DB WP No. 14331 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) Respondent Nos.3 and 4-Karnataka Lokayukta and its Registrar in Application No.2705/2019 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), are in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21.06.2019. The Tribunal by order stated supra allowed the application and set aside the order impugned dated 19.01.2019 passed by first respondent-Government (Annexure-A7), and Articles of charge dated 14.03.2019 issued by fourth respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta (Annexure-A8) so far as it relates to applicant and further issued direction to settle the pensionary benefits, to which the applicant is entitled within the time bound manner. 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:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46453-DB WP No. 14331 of 2023 The applicant joined the Public Works Department as a Junior Engineer on 28.02.1998. While he was working as in Public Works Department Sub-Division, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District, a suo-motu investigation was initiated by the Chief Engineer, Technical Wing Karnataka Lokayukta, in respect of work pertaining to improvement of road from Chellahalli to Aswala Village during the year 2009. Though the Chief Engineer has not submitted any report to the Karnataka Lokayukta, the matter was again entrusted to the Assistant Executive Engineer by the Karnataka Lokayukta on 09.05.2017. The Assistant Executive Engineer upon investigation submitted his report in 2017 holding that it is difficult to analyze the quality of work executed in 2009 after a lapse of eight years. Though the applicant has submitted his reply to the notice issued by the Karnataka Lokayukta, same was not considered and a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1987 was forwarded to the Government. The first respondent-Government upon receipt of the notice mechanically entrusted the Departmental - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46453-DB WP No. 14331 of 2023 enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short) with third respondent. Subsequent to order of entrustment, fourth respondent issued Articles of charge dated 14.03.2019, against the applicant. Aggrieved by the order of entrustment and issuance of Articles of charge, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.2705/ 2019. Both the first respondent-State as well as the Karnataka Lokayukta opposed the application. The Tribunal after considering the entire material placed on record and rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties was of the opinion that the entire initiation of the order of entrustment as well as the issuance of Articles of charge are hit by Section 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 ('KCSRs' for short) and proceeded to allow the application, and set aside the order of entrustment as well as issuance of Articles of charge stated supra, by its order dated 21.06.2019. It is this order passed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46453-DB WP No. 14331 of 2023 by the Tribunal is called in question by third respondent and fourth respondent - Karnataka Lokayukta, in this petition belatedly by four years one month. 4. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Sri.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years one month, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the 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 is called upon to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46453-DB WP No. 14331 of 2023 amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction. 6. 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 four years one month is fatal to the case. On this count alone, 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.: 2 Sl No.: 6