- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14594-DB WP No. 18080 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 18080 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. SRI SHAMANNA, S/O LATE KALASAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED MARKETING SUPERVISOR, A.P.M.C, BHADRAVATHI, RESIDING AT No.392, "APEKSHA", Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14594-DB WP No. 18080 of 2024 7TH CROSS, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE, GADIKOPPA, SHIVAMOGA 577205 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/03/2022 IN APPLICATIONS BEARING No.5930/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AS ISSUED BY THE KSAT ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELMINARY 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 Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for Sri Joseph Antony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 2. The Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by its Registrar, has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed in Application No.5930/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”).Respondent No.2 had filed the said application - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14594-DB WP No. 18080 of 2024 before the Tribunal assailing the enquiry report at Annexure-A3 and the order of penalty dated 17.10.2020. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has set aside the enquiry report as well as the order of penalty. 3. Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for Sri Joseph Antony, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order of the Tribunal has been passed without considering the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel further submits that the order of penalty is based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that the Tribunal has committed an error in interfering with the same. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of penalty on technical grounds. 4. Per contra, Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, fairly submits that the order of penalty dated 17.10.2020 was challenged by the State in Writ Petition No.11043/2023 and, in view of the Tribunal’s order having been given effect to, the said writ petition was withdrawn by order dated 25.07.2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14594-DB WP No. 18080 of 2024 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 6. Respondent No.2 was issued Articles of Charge and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report concluded that the charges were proved. Based on the enquiry report, an order of penalty under Annexure-A7 dated 17.10.2020 was passed, whereby a penalty of withholding 50% of the pension permanently was imposed. The Tribunal, upon examining the enquiry report and the order of penalty, interfered with the same and set aside both the enquiry report and the order of penalty by order dated 15.03.2022. 6.1 The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State in Writ Petition No.11043/2023, in which the present petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.2. The State withdrew the said writ petition on 25.07.2023 on the ground that the order of the Tribunal dated 15.03.2022 had been implemented. 7. In the present proceedings, we are not examining the maintainability of this writ petition filed by the petitioner in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14594-DB WP No. 18080 of 2024 view of the withdrawal of the writ petition earlier preferred by the State Government. However, when the State Government had already preferred a writ petition in the year 2023 and the same came to be withdrawn upon implementation of the Tribunal’s order on 25.07.2023, we find no justifiable reason for the petitioner to wait for another year to file the present writ petition. 8. There is no explanation for the delay of more than two years in filing this writ petition. At the very least, this Court is concerned with the delay from the date of withdrawal of the writ petition by the State Government till the presentation of the present writ petition. It is true that no specific period of limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition. However, in the absence of such prescription, the petition is required to be filed within a reasonable period. In the present case, we find no explanation for the delay of more than two years in filing the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that each case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. It is contended that, having regard to the seriousness of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14594-DB WP No. 18080 of 2024 charges, this Court may entertain the petition in exceptional cases, depending upon the nature of the misconduct and its consequences, even if the petition is filed belatedly. 10. However, such a course cannot be adopted in every case. We are of the view that the present petition does not fall within the category of exceptional cases for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner had participated in Writ Petition No.11043/2023 filed by the State and has presented the present petition nearly one year after the withdrawal of the said writ petition by the State. Secondly, respondent No.2 was aged about 68 years when the present petition was filed and, as of now, he must be about 70 years of age. 11. Entertaining the present petition by issuing notice to respondent No.2 would result in unnecessary hardship and harassment in the evening of his life. Even while considering the delay with some degree of leniency, this Court is not inclined to issue notice, as it would cause inconvenience and hardship to respondent No.2 at this advanced age. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14594-DB WP No. 18080 of 2024 12. In view of the above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17