- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 3183 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI M.S BUILDING, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, M.S BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI RAJANNA S/O NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER PLANNING SUB-DIVISION, SIRA-572 137 R/AT MARADI RANGANATHA NILAYA Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 80 FEET MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, TUDA LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR-572 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT IN A.NO-2646/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The Lokayukta has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Application No.2646/2023 by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 and thereby set-aside the impugned order bearing No.GraAPa 106 ENQ 2022 at Annexure-'A14' passed by respondent No.1. 2. The briefs facts of the case are, respondent No.2 was working as Chief Engineer, Zilla Panchayat, Tiptur Sub- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 Division in the year 2002 and he served there upto 2012. During that time, five civil works at Horaghatta Koramarahatti, Hosur (G.Mallenahalli), Nagur Mallasandra, Kurubarahalli Vaddarahatti, and Agrahara village of Nallikere Gram Panchayath were executed. All the civil works were pertaining to Mini Drinking Water Supply to the said villages. On that basis, the petition was filed by one Mohan S/o Jayachandra, resident of Tiptur alleging certain irregularities in execution of five civil works in five villages at Tiptur, allegedly committed by respondent No.2 in the year 2010-11. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Lokayukta and Lokayukta appointed the enquiry officer and charges were framed against respondent No.2. 3. Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry proceedings, the presenting officer examined one witness as PW.1 i.e., officer of Lokayukta and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. However, respondent No.2 has examined one witness as DW.1 i.e., DGO-2. 4. Thereafter, enquiry officer submitted the report stating that charges against respondent No.2 were proved. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 Accordingly the matter was sent to respondent No.1 and second show cause notice was issued to respondent No.2, for which he replied. Despite, the disciplinary authority has passed the penalty order as under: DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: UÁæC¥À 106 EJ£ï PÀÆå 2022, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28.03.2023 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ PÁgÀtUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, ²æà gÁdtÚ, CA¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, AiÉÆÃd£Á G¥À©¨sÁUÀ, w¥ÀlÆgÀÄ (¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï AiÉÆÃd£Á G¥À©¨sÁUÀ, ²gÁ) EªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1957gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8(iii) gÀ C£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ PÁ°PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è 03 ªÁ¶ðPÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À §rÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAavÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ ºÉÆAzÀĪÀAvÉ vÀqÉ»rAiÀÄĪÀ zÀAqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¢ü¹zÉ. ²æà gÁdtÚ, CA¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, AiÉÆÃd£Á G¥À©¨sÁUÀ, w¥ÀlÆgÀÄ (¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï AiÉÆÃd£Á G¥À©¨sÁUÀ, ²gÁ) EªÀjUÉ «¢ü¸À¯ÁzÀ zÀAqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß eÁjUÉƽ¸À®Ä ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è The said penalty order was challenged by respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, set-aside the penalty order and directed respondent No.1 to pay consequential and financial benefits of respondent No.2, to which he is legally entitled to. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 6. Heard learned counsel Sri Joseph Anthony for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri V. Shivareddy for respondent No.1. 7. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred while setting aside the order of penalty and report of the enquiry officer, whereby the enquiry officer after examining PW.1 and perusal of the documents, came to the conclusion that respondent No.2 was solely responsible for the irregularities of the work, wherein the estimate amount sanctioned was Rs.5,00,000/-, however, respondent No.2 spent only Rs.4,10,000/-. As such, the said aspect of the matter is proved before the enquiry officer. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority passed the penalty order by imposing reasonable punishment to respondent No.2. As such, he prays to allow the petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supports the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and prays to set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal the entire materials placed before us including the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the only point that would arise for our consideration is: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority so also the enquiry report?" 10. As could be gathered from records, the allegation against respondent No.2 is that when he was the Engineer at Zilla Panchayat, Tiptur Sub-Division, some irregularities in the five civil works in five villages have taken place and that was in the year 2010-11. According to the charge, civil work was pertaining to installing the motors for the estimated amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at Horaghatta Koramarahatti, Hosur (G.Mallenahalli), Nagur Mallasandra, Kurubarahalli Vaddarahatti, and Agrahara village of Nallikere Gram Panchayath village in Tiptur in the year 2010-11, but actual amount spent was Rs.4,10,000/-. In order to prove the charge, the presenting officer examined PW.1, who is none other than the officer of Lokayukta, who did not know about the charges or irregularities committed by respondent No.2. The presenting - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 officer has failed to examine any of the relevant witness of the said Zilla Panchayat, Tiptur Sub-Division, who had knowledge about the irregularities or the civil works, which allegedly conducted under the supervision of respondent No.2. There is no such material documents also placed by the presenting officer before the enquiry officer to substantiate that there was an irregularity of Rs.90,000/-. In such circumstance, report of the enquiry officer that the imputation of charges against respondent No.2-DGO is proved cannot be accepted and subsequent penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority has no legs to stand. These aspects of the matter are dealt in detail by the Tribunal in its order at paragraph No.7, which reads as follows: "7. After perusal of the entire materials and before coming to the other merits of the case let me examine what is the scope of judicial review in respect of the enquiry officer's report by this Tribunal is concerned, it is no doubt true there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that the scope of judicial review of the enquiry officer's report by this Tribunal is very limited in nature and this Tribunal is not sitting as an appellate body over the enquiry report. Therefore, re- appreciation of the entire materials produced before the enquiry officer by way of oral and documentary evidence is also not permissible. Therefore, it is for the applicant herein to make out a case that it is a case of no evidence and finding recorded by the enquiry officer is perverse in nature. If the applicant is able to make out a case that it is a case of no evidence and findings recorded by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 enquiry officer is perverse in nature and if the applicant is able to make out a case that relevant materials were ignored by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer based his findings only on the basis of irrelevant materials/consideration, then in that case this Tribunal can interfere into the finding of the enquiry officer. For this proposition I am referring to the two decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of (2006) 5 SCC 88 rendered in the case of M.V Bijalani V/s Union of India para No.25 of the said decision is relevant for our purpose and the said paragraph reads under; "It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with." Also I am referring to another decision rendered in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs The Commissioner of Police & Ors. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 Para No.6 of the said judgment is relevant for our purpose and the said paragraph reads as under; "6. It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the Enquiry Officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the Appellate Authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictate of the superior authority." After perusal of the principles in the above mentioned two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, let me examine the materials placed before the enquiry officer at the time of report the enquiry officer though made reference to the evidence deposed by PW-1 and Dw-1 but not discussed about the said evidence. Therefore, there is no appreciation of the evidence at all. Mere referring to the evidence as it is deposed by the witnesses is not said to be the appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, materials goes to show that the enquiry officer wrongly read the evidence and wrongly proceeded to hold that the applicant committed dereliction of duty and the disciplinary authority has proved the charge against the applicant when it has come in the evidence of Pw-1 the very investigation officer, that applicant attended only one work out of 5 Civil works and other 4 works are not at all concerned to him. Hence, the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse in nature and it is not in accordance with the materials placed before him by way of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the applicant has made out a case." 11. Nevertheless, respondent No.2 examined himself as DW.1 before the enquiry officer with a probable defence that at - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31530-DB WP No. 3183 of 2025 the relevant point of time he was not in-charge of the civil works sanctioned to the Tiptur Sub-Division. In such circumstance, we are of the view that the present case comes within the ambit of 'no evidence case' and the order of disciplinary authority and the report of enquiry officer suffer from perversity. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly set-aside the same and passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and same is dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18