- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 19299 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MALLIKARJUN M., S/O LATE N. MALLESH, WORKING AS A VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KALYADI CIRCLE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 573125, R/AT MACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, GATTADAHALLI POST, HALEBEEDU HOBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANKESH A. BOHRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 573201. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 4. THE TASILDHAR, BELUR TALUK 573115, HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENT No.2 TO CONCLUDE THE FIRST DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE ENQUIRY REPORT BY RESPONDENT No.4 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Sankesh A. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.4624/2022 is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 challenging the order dated 25.09.2023, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 3. While working in the Revenue Department, the petitioner was the subject of a complaint filed by one Sri Mugappa and others before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hassan, on 17.03.2017, following which he was trapped and arrested by the Investigating Officer on 10.04.2017. Respondent No.1- State, by order dated 23.08.2021, permitted Respondent No.2 to conduct a departmental enquiry. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 issued a charge memo on 23.02.2022. After receipt of the petitioner’s reply dated 05.03.2022 to the show-cause notice of 23.02.2022, Respondent No.2, by order dated 06.04.2022, appointed Respondent No.4 as Enquiry Officer, and the Administrative Sheristedar as Presenting Officer. Meanwhile, Respondent No.1, by order dated 30.06.2022, under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter ‘KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957’), entrusted the enquiry to Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 thereafter issued the Articles of Charge on 30.07.2022. Respondent No.4 proceeded with the enquiry. 3.1 The petitioner filed Application No.4624/2022 before the Tribunal, challenging the order of entrustment dated 30.06.2022 and the Articles of Charge dated 30.07.2022 issued by Respondent No.3, contending that a departmental enquiry on the same charges was being conducted by Respondent No.4. The Tribunal, following the judgment of this Court in Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by its Registrar, M.S. Building, Bengaluru v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No.35267/2018 and connected matters, decided on 30.06.2021, dismissed the application. The Tribunal further held that the petition challenging the show-cause notice was premature. With regard to the pending enquiry before Respondent No.4, the Tribunal observed that, in view of the entrustment of the enquiry to Respondent No.3, it was for the Government to decide the course of action concerning the pending enquiry before Respondent No.4. 4. Sri Sankesh A. Bohra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Articles of Charge issued by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 pertain to the same set of allegations. Respondent No.2 had appointed Respondent No.4 as Enquiry Officer, who has since progressed with the enquiry. At this stage, entrustment of the enquiry to Respondent No.3 and issuance of Articles of Charge on the same allegations is impermissible. Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No.4 submitted the enquiry report on 18.12.2022, holding that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. In view of such exoneration by Respondent No.4, another enquiry by Respondent No.3 is not permissible. 5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that Respondent No.1 was justified in entrusting the enquiry to Respondent No.3. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that, as on the date of entrustment, the enquiry by Respondent No.4 had not sufficiently progressed. He contends that any challenge to the enquiry conducted by Respondent No.3 at this stage is premature. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 Respondent Nos.1 and 2, we note that the complaint was filed on 17.03.2017, following which the petitioner was trapped and arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 10.04.2017. Respondent No.1, by order dated 23.08.2021, permitted Respondent No.2 to conduct a departmental enquiry. Respondent No.2 thereafter issued the Articles of Charge and, after considering the petitioner’s reply, appointed Respondent No.4 as Enquiry Officer on 06.04.2022. Subsequently, Respondent No.1-State, under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter ‘KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957’), entrusted the enquiry to Respondent No.3 on 30.06.2022, pursuant to which Respondent No.3 issued the Articles of Charge on 30.07.2022. 7. Respondent No.4 issued the enquiry notice to the petitioner and recorded the evidence of PW.1 on 13.12.2022, and the evidence of PWs.2, 3, and 4 on 18.11.2022, subsequently submitting the final Enquiry Report on 18.12.2022. It is noteworthy that at the time the evidence was recorded by Respondent No.4, Respondent No.1 had already entrusted the enquiry to Respondent No.3 on 30.06.2022. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 8. The material on record does not permit a presumption that Respondent No.4 was unaware of the entrustment of the enquiry to Respondent No.3. Even after Respondent No.1 entrusted the enquiry to Respondent No.3, it prima facie appears that Respondent No.4 expedited the enquiry and submitted the final report in favour of the petitioner, holding that the charges were not proved. The submission of the enquiry report by Respondent No.4 after the Articles of Charge were issued by Respondent No.3 raises a serious doubt as to the correctness of the report, leaving open the question of the effect of the order dated 23.08.2021, by which Respondent No.1 directed Respondent No.2 to conduct the enquiry, pursuant to which Respondent No.4 was appointed as Enquiry Officer. This Court is of the view that, upon entrustment of the enquiry to Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.1-State, Respondent No.4 was expected to seek clarification regarding the continuation of the enquiry. Without doing so, Respondent No.4 submitted the enquiry report in haste. The manner in which the report was submitted raises serious doubt; however, we restrain ourselves from expressing any definitive views on this aspect. It appears that, in view of the entrustment of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 enquiry to Respondent No.3, Respondent No.1 has not taken any decision on the enquiry report dated 18.12.2022. Further, the petitioner has not taken steps to seek clarification from Respondent No.1 regarding the said enquiry report. 9. Even in the prayer of the application before the Tribunal, no relief was sought with regard to the enquiry report dated 18.12.2022. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, having considered the object of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and following the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.35267/2018, rightly held that Respondent No.1 was justified in entrusting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner to Respondent No.3. The challenge to the entrustment and the Articles of Charge is premature, as correctly observed by the Tribunal, which referred to paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, [(2006) 12 SCC 28], which is as follows: "14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show- cause notice does not give rise to any cause of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36733-DB WP No. 19299 of 2024 action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance." 10. In the aforesaid view, there is no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14