- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26134 WP No. 1126 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 1126 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MR. SUBHASHCHANDRA IRAPPA CHOUGALA AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AT M.K. HUBLI AS JUNIOR ENGINEER IN TOWN PANCHAYAT M.K. HUBLI, TALUK: BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELGAUM – 591 118. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. BASAVRAJ, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GOUTHAM A.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26134 WP No. 1126 of 2026 2. THE SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ROOM NO. 435, IV FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. HON'BLE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAMESH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA CULMINATING IN THE SECOND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING No. NAR 16 BMS/2024 VIDE ANNX-B DATED 19.11.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26134 WP No. 1126 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 19.11.2025 issued by the respondents vide Annexure-B. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows: It is alleged that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification of some percentage on the total bill amount. On the basis of the Government Order, nomination order was issued by the Upalokayukta. The Upalokayukta conducted the enquiry and submitted a report stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner’s are proved. The Upalokayukta made a recommendation recommending compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the service. On the basis of the recommendation, the Government issued a show cause notice on 19.11.2024 as to why the suitable action should not be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner sought time to reply to the show - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26134 WP No. 1126 of 2026 cause notice dated 19.11.2024. The respondents granted time to reply to the show cause notice dated 19.11.2024. After conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report, and the Upalokayukta made recommendation to the government to take a suitable action against the petitioner. Based on the recommendation, the respondents issued a show cause notice on 19.11.2024 as to why a suitable action should not be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner sought time to reply to the show cause notice. The respondents did not grant the time to submit a reply to the show cause notice. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri S.Basavaraj, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have issued the second show cause notice. He submits that the recommendation made by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26134 WP No. 1126 of 2026 Upalokayukta is arbitrary and erroneous and the respondents could not act upon the recommendation made by the Upalokayukta. The show cause notice issued by the respondents is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to set aside the impugned notice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that impugned show cause notice is only a notice. He submits that the petitioner is required to submit a reply to the second show cause notice and has not submitted a reply to the second show cause notice despite granting sufficient opportunities. He submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA V. M/S.KRISHNA WAX (P) LTD. in CIVIL APPEAL NO.8609 OF 2019 disposed of on 14.01.2019. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26134 WP No. 1126 of 2026 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that an enquiry was held against the petitioner by the Upalokayukta and the Upalokayukta has submitted a report along with the recommendation to take a suitable action against the petitioner, based on the recommendation made by the Upalokayukta, the respondents have issued the second show cause notice as to why a suitable action should not be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner instead of replying to the second show cause notice, filed this petition. Thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA (referred supra), 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26134 WP No. 1126 of 2026 9. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a reply to the second show cause notice within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents are directed to consider the reply and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 10. All the contentions of the petitioner are kept open. 11. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB