- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.201557 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHARANAPPA S/O SINDRAMAPPA SANGME, AGED: 63 YEARS, OCC: LITERATE ASSISTANT (SUPER NUMERARY POST), KARNAJA PROJECT, CANAL CONSTRUCTION SUB DIVISION BHALKI, BIDAR DISTRICT. R/O: MDAKATTI VILLAGE, BHALKI TALUK, NOW R/AT BASAVESHWAR CHOWK, GUNJ, BHALKI, BIDAR, BIDAR: DISTRICT – 585 401. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION (SERVICES-A), Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION NO.20338/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. 2. The order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the KSAT, Kalaburagi in Application No.20338/2020 is assailed in this writ petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 3. By the impugned order, the KSAT has quashed the order passed by the petitioner herein bearing No.d¸ÀAE 168 ¸ÉÃE« 2015 dated 11.06.2020 by which the penalty recommended for compulsory retirement from service and permanently withholding 40% of pension payable to applicant/respondent No.1 herein was confirmed. 4. The applicant was working as Literate Assistant (Super Numerary Post), Karanja Project, Minor Constructions, Sub-Division in Bidar District. An enquiry was conducted in respect of four charges against him by the Enquiry Officer of the Institution of Hon’ble Upa- lokayukta, who held that the charges are proved vide Enquiry Report dated 28.06.2019. In turn, the Hon’ble Upa-lokayukta submitted his recommendation dated 01.07.2019 to the Government for imposing penalty. The Government vide impugned order dated 11.06.2020 confirmed the penalty. Challenge was made by the applicant before the KSAT, denying the charges levelled as well as on the ground that the Hon’ble Upa-lokayukta did - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 not have necessary jurisdiction and authority to conduct the investigation in the matter which relates to violation of Conduct Rules. The KSAT vide impugned order concluded that the Hon’ble Upa-lokayukta has powers to conduct investigation only in respect of an ‘action’ of the Government servant and has no power to investigate any complaint or grievances in this regard under Section 7 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short ‘Act’). 5. As per Section 2(1) of the Act, ‘Action’ means administrative action taken by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes willful failure or omission to act and all other expressions relating to such action shall be construed accordingly. 6. Further, Sections 7(2) and 7(2A) of the Act reads as under: “7(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, Upa-lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 being the Chief Minister, Minister, Member of the Legislature, Secretary or other public servant referred to in sub-section (1), in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upa-lokayukta, recorded in writing, the subject of a grievance or an allegation. 7(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta may investigate any action taken by or with general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the State Government.” 7. In the instant case, the charges against the applicant are relating to: i) purchase of immovable property in the name of wife, without permission of the Government and without intimation to the department ii) Running a commission agent shop under the name and style of ‘Sharanappa Sangame & Co.’ in APMC Yard at Bhalki without permission from the department, iii) Owning plots/sites in land in Sy.No.208, measuring 2- 35 (A-G) in Bhalki village and selling them without prior permission of the department, iv) Violation of Section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 79(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, while acquiring immovable properties. 8. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental enquiry was pertaining to violation of Code of Conduct of Public Servant of purchasing properties in his name and in the name of his wife and children without obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority, starting a business of commission agency etc., and Section 79(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms prohibits for acquiring agricultural land by any mode except by inheritance and Will, whereas the applicant has purchased the property and converted into plots and sold it without informing the prescribed authority, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rules. 9. It is relevant to refer to the judgment passed in W.P.No.200552/2023, disposed of on 23.07.2024 in the case of the Hon’ble Upalokayukta-1 Vs. K. Bhimraya and Another. Para Nos.11 and 12 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 “11. A perusal of the definition indicates that it encompasses administrative action taken in any form whether by way of recommendation or finding or 'in any other manner'. The issue involved in this instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. KEMPAIAH (referred supra) wherein held that ‘We are afraid we cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel as it would not only be contrary to the principle of construction of statutes but will also be repugnant to the object of the Act, pointed out above. The expression 'in any other manner' contains general words which construed literally should receive their full and natural meaning but when they follow specific and particular words of the same genus, it will be presumed that the legislature has used the general words in a limited sense to convey the meaning implied by specific and particular words. This follows from application of Rule of eiusdem generis. That rule which is an exception to the rule of construction that general words should be given their full and natural meaning, was enunciated by Lord Campbell in R vs. Edmundson (1859) 28 L.J.M.C.213,”…. where there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified". 12. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'be Apex Court in the case of KEMPAIAH (referred supra) held that Upa- Lokayuka cannot investigate any complaint involving the allegation of disproportionate - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 assets since it does not constitute any action of respondent No.1. The Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KEMPAIAH (referred supra) has rightly held that Upa-lokayukta can investigate the complaint involving the allegation in respect of the administrative action only, either under section 7(2) or subsection 3(9) of the Act and the investigation by the Hon'ble Upa-lokayukta of possessing disproportionate assets cannot be sustained in law. The Tribunal has rightly quashed the article of charges on the ground that Upa-lokayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate regarding possession of disproportionate assets by the employee. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to respondent No.2 to initiate disciplinary action against respondent No.1 for alleged violation of conduct rules. The Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order. We do not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned order.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Kempaiah reported in (1998) 6 SCC 103, held that the Upa-lokayukta does not have the authority to investigate complaints relating to the possession of disproportionate assets, as such allegations do not fall within the scope of ‘administrative action’ either under Section 7(2) or Section 9(3) of the Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3624-DB WP No. 201557 of 2023 11. The decision referred supra rightly applies to the present case, as the charges levelled against the applicant, by their very nature, do not constitute ‘administrative action’ as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. 12. In light of the above decision, the conclusion arrived by the KSAT is justifiable and does not call for any interference. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 14. It is open for the State to proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE Sd/- (K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20