- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50850-DB WP No. 30924 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.30924 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQURIES-11. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50850-DB WP No. 30924 of 2024 2. SRI. V.C. CHATTERA, S/O LATE SRI. CHANNABASAPPA CHATTER, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RETIRED SECRETARY. GRAMA PANCHAYATH GUBBEVADA, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 203. RESIDING AT NO.42, NEAR EXCELLENT SCHOOL, LADIES HOSTEL, BACK SIDE SHIVASHANKAR DABHA, THORVI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR - 586 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.8622/2018 DATED 03/12/2018 (ANNEXURE-B) BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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:50850-DB WP No. 30924 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition is by the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta and another under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 03.12.2018 in Application No.8622/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short], allowing the application, quashing the order impugned dated 17.05.2017, issued by the first respondent/State Government (Annexure-A5) and the Articles of Charge dated 01.07.2017 issued by the second petitioner, (Annexure-A6), insofar as the applicant is concerned. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant was initially appointed as a Grama Panchayath Secretary and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008. To his dismay, he received Articles of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50850-DB WP No. 30924 of 2024 Charge by the third respondent dated 01.07.2017, stating that during the year 2004 to 2006, the applicant and another, without executing the works under the projects, misappropriated the grant, which amounts to dereliction of duty and misconduct and unbecoming of a Government servant. 4. Aggrieved by the order of entrustment of enquiry and the issuance of Articles of Charge, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.8622/2018. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions was of the opinion that the entrustment order passed by the Government resulting in issuance of Articles of Charge in the year 2017, when the Government servant retired on 31.05.2008, is belated by nine years. As such held that the entrustment order as well as issuance of Articles of Charge are hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules ('KCSRs' for short). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50850-DB WP No. 30924 of 2024 5. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order of entrustment as well as issuance of Articles of Charge, by its order dated 03.12.2018. It is this order is called in question, by filing this petition belatedly by six years. 6. Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy K.S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for first respondent are heard. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7. Though Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy K.S, emphasizing on the ground taken in the petition on merits submits that, the charges levelled against the applicant are serious in nature, cannot be lost sight while considering the entrustment and issuance of Articles of charge. He further submits that, the private respondent has fair opportunity to contest the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50850-DB WP No. 30924 of 2024 matter. The enquiry is essential to discern the truth. In these circumstances, the entire order is vitiated. 8. Before adverting to the contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the query of this Court regarding the inordinate delay in approaching this Court from the date of order till filing of the writ petition, he is unable to place anything, which we could consider as plausible explanation for the delay to accept the contentions on merits. Nothing is forthcoming in the entire petition regarding the plausible explanation offered in approaching this writ Court belatedly. In these circumstances, this writ petition is not only hit by delay but by laches too. 9. The petitioners cannot claim any exception to the case than a citizen/party litigant when there is delay and laches in approaching the Court. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis, as the delay defeats all the rights. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50850-DB WP No. 30924 of 2024 On scrutiny of the entire case papers, we find no reason to condone the inordinate 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 six years four months is fatal to the case on hand. 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 PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn