- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53191-DB WP No. 3106 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH 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. 3106 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY), M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. B. MOHANKUMAR, S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53191-DB WP No. 3106 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO. 578, 14TH MAIN, MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGATTA LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES OF 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/09/2020 IN APPLICATIONS BEARING NO.3028/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AS ISSUED BY THE KSAT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta - second respondent in Application No.3028/2020 before the Karnataka - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53191-DB WP No. 3106 of 2025 State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.09.2020. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, allowed the application and set aside the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure A10 and the articles of charge issued by the second respondent dated 10.07.2020, vide Annexure-A11. 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: The applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.3028/2020 calling in question the order of entrustment and the articles of charge stated supra on the premise that he retired from service on 30.09.2013 on attaining superannuation, in these - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53191-DB WP No. 3106 of 2025 circumstances the report of the Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984') requesting to entrust the enquiry under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 submitted to the Government resulting in order of entrustment on 11.01.2018 and the articles of charge issued on 10.07.2020, with respect to the incident occurred in the year 1993-1994 are hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules (‘KCSRs’ for short). 4. Both the State Government and the Karnataka Lokayukta orally objected the application. 5. The Tribunal upon consideration of the materials placed before it and the rival submissions made at bar formed an opinion that the order of entrustment and the articles of charge issued is hit by Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs, and proceeded to allow the application, quashing the order of entrustment as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53191-DB WP No. 3106 of 2025 well as issuance of articles of charge impugned in the application, by its order dated 16.09.2020. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, is called in question by the second respondent - Karnataka Lokayukta in this petition belatedly by four years five months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7. When queried regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years five months. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53191-DB WP No. 3106 of 2025 8. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 is called upon to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction. 9. 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 five months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53191-DB WP No. 3106 of 2025 writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending I.A's if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3 ct-vn