- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10340-DB WP No. 12465 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 12465 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILIDNG, BENGALURU-560001. 2. SRI M.M. FIYAZ AHMED, S/O LATE R. MOHAMMED ALI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER-2, PRED SUB-DIVISON, SOMAWARPET, KODAGU, R/O PUMP HOUSE ROAD, YOGANANDA LAYOUT, BIEHANAHALLI, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10340-DB WP No. 12465 of 2024 KUSHALNAGAR-571224. KODAGU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1; SRI V.R. SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A. No. 3286/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) 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 S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner-Karnataka Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2024 in Application No.3286/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), allowing second respondent's application, whereunder he had questioned the order of penalty dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure-A21) withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and directed recovery of a sum of Rs.3,20,703/- said to have been the loss caused by the second respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10340-DB WP No. 12465 of 2024 2. Heard Sri Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel for the petitioner-Lokayukta; Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri V.R. Sarathy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Lokayukta would submit that on entrustment of enquiry to the petitioner, the petitioner issued Articles of Charge dated 07.06.2014 (Annexure-A8) and on enquiry, the Additional Registrar of the petitioner-Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the DGOs 1 to 5 are proved. The enquiry report was forwarded along with recommendation of the Upa-Lokayukta dated 03.08.2022, whereunder punishment of withholding two annual increment with cumulative effect and the recovery was recommended. Respondent No.2 was issued with second show-cause notice dated 09.09.2022 along with enquiry report and respondent No.2 is said to have submitted his reply on 10.10.2022. 4. Respondent No.1-disciplinary authority, the State Government on considering the entire material, by impugned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10340-DB WP No. 12465 of 2024 order dated 28.03.2023, imposed the above-stated penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of Rs.3,20,703/- the loss said to have been caused by second respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 was before the Tribunal in the aforesaid application. 5. The Tribunal, on examining the entire enquiry records and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the application by setting the order of penalty dated 28.03.2023 holding that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is perverse and it is not in accordance with the material placed before the enquiry officer. Questioning the said order, the petitioner-Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition. 6. It is pertinent to note here itself that the disciplinary authority, the State Government has not challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of penalty in respect of respondent No.2. On the other hand, the State by Government Order dated 27.11.2024 has taken a decision that, it is not a fit case for filing writ petition - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10340-DB WP No. 12465 of 2024 before this Court and consequently, cancelled the order of penalty dated 28.03.2023 subject to the outcome of the present writ petition i.e., W.P.No.12465/2024. 7. Sri Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in addition to the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that the order of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous and the Tribunal could not have appreciated the evidence as if it is an Appellate Authority. Further, learned counsel would submit that PW2-complainant examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority has deposed that 2 kilometre road work was again re-laid after the complaint was made before the petitioner-Lokayukta. It is his submission that the above evidence itself is sufficient to hold the charge against respondent No.2 as proved. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, Sri V.R. Sarathy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would support the order passed by the Tribunal and he would further submit that in the absence of the challenge to impugned order passed by the Tribunal by the State Government, the Lokayukta authorities - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10340-DB WP No. 12465 of 2024 could not have challenged the same before this Court. Further, he would submit that unless the petitioner points out the patent illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, this Court would not interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel would submit that there is no evidence or material to prove the charge and as such, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and is not in accordance with the material placed before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Sri Vikas Rojjipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State on the other hand, submits that, though Government has not filed writ petition, supports the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10340-DB WP No. 12465 of 2024 11. This Court would not sit as an Appellate Authority against the impugned order of penalty or the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would exercise limited jurisdiction and would only examine the decision-making process. Further, in a matter like this, i.e., the disciplinary proceedings, this Court would interfere only if it is shown that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is one without jurisdiction or if it is a case of no evidence. 12. As contented by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court or the Tribunal would not sit as an Appellate Authority and look into the evidence on record. However, the Tribunal or this Court can go through the evidence to find out whether it is a case of no evidence or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any patent illegality so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. When the government has taken a decision not to file writ petition challenging the impugned order and when it has recorded that it is not a fit case for filing writ petition, this Court when the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10340-DB WP No. 12465 of 2024 challenged by the Karnataka Lokayukta, cannot interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal lightly unless it is shown that the order is wholly illegal and totally perverse. 13. 13. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has gone into the evidence to find out as to whether it is a case of no evidence or not. PW1 in his evidence has admitted that the certificate issued by the authorities with regard to satisfactory work and also to the suggestion that the work is carried out in a satisfactory manner has stated that "may be". 14. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21