- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH 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. 25930 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA) AND: 1. SMT.H. SUJATHA W/O K.N SURESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 R/AT NO 267, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, VIDHANASOUDHA LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058 2. THE LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. MADHUKIRAN JAGGA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2022 MADE IN A.No-413/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE- A PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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 State, has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, "the Tribunal") in Application No.413/2022, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 herein, set aside the order dated 13.08.2019 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service, and granted consequential reliefs. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that respondent No.1/applicant was initially - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 appointed as a Typist in the year 1997 in the office of the Tahsildar, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District. Subsequently, on her request, she was transferred to Bengaluru. Thereafter, pursuant to a request made by her in the year 2010, her cadre was changed from the post of Typist to that of Second Division Assistant and she continued to serve in the same office. 3. While so, on 29.01.2011, a suo motu investigation was initiated under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, on allegation that respondent No.1 had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.300/- from one Sri Anegundi Mohammed Azam, for issuance of a Diploma in Pharmacy Certificate and Pharmacist Registration Certificate. Based on the trap proceedings conducted by the Lokayukta Police, Crime No.06/2011 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter was tried in Spl.C.C. No.94/2011 before the Special Court. After trial, she was acquitted by judgment dated 05.08.2017. However, notwithstanding the acquittal, departmental proceedings were - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 initiated against her. An enquiry was conducted, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges proved, and after issuance of a second show-cause notice and on consideration of her reply, the Government passed an order dated 13.08.2019 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal on assessment of records placed before it, allowed the application and set aside the order of penalty. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri. Harisha A.S., the learned counsel Sri. Rajashekar appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri. Madhukiran Jagga, for learned counsel Sri. Joseph Anthony appearing for respondent No.2. We have also perused the material available on record. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that the Tribunal has erred in interfering with the order of punishment despite the Enquiry Officer having recorded a categorical finding that the charges stood proved. He would - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 submit that the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry, particularly that of the shadow witness (PW.2) and the Investigating Officer (PW.3), clearly established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by respondent No.1. 7. He would further contend that the acquittal of respondent No.1 in the criminal proceedings could not, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry. He would submit that the disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report, the recommendation of the Lokayukta and the explanation submitted by respondent No.1, has independently imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service, as respondent No.1 failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for possession of the tainted currency notes and such unexplained possession itself constitutes misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition by setting aside of the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would support the order passed by the Tribunal and contend that the criminal Court, after a full- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 fledged trial, acquitted respondent No.1 of the very same allegations. He would submit that the complainant was not examined in the departmental enquiry and, therefore, the foundational requirement relating to proof of demand of illegal gratification remained unestablished. He would further contend that the Enquiry Officer ignored material inconsistencies in the evidence and failed to properly appreciate the testimonies of the witnesses recorded in the criminal proceedings. According to him, there was no reliable evidence establishing either demand or acceptance of illegal gratification and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. He would also submit that the Tribunal, upon an independent consideration of the material on record, has rightly found that the charges were not proved and has consequently set aside the order of compulsory retirement. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and so also perused the documents made available before us. 10. The point that would arise for our consideration is: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1/applicant?” 11. At the outset, it is seen that the complaint was lodged in the year 2011, whereas the Disciplinary Authority passed the order in the year 2019 and the Tribunal, by order dated 29.08.2019, set-aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The present writ petition has been preferred by the State of Karnataka in the year 2023 i.e., after lapse of four year. As such, there is an inordinate delay in filing this writ petition. No doubt there is no limitation to file the writ petition, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS V. T.T. MURALI BABU, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 12. Be that as it may, on a perusal of the enquiry report as well as the order of the Disciplinary Authority, it is evident that the same have been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the documents produced by respondent No.1. It is further noticed that the complainant has not been examined. There are in total three witnesses have been examined before the enquiry officer, however, PW.1 being the shadow witness and PW.2 being panch witness totally turned hostile in the enquiry proceedings. As such, there is no - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 corroborative evidence to prove the testimony of PW.3, namely the Investigating Officer of the Karnataka Lokayukta. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to conclude the enquiry solely on the basis of the evidence of PW.3, and submitted his report. The Disciplinary Authority, relying upon the said report, imposed the penalty on respondent No.1. On careful examination of the evidence on record, the same is insufficient to prove the alleged charge. 13. On a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the case falls squarely within the ambit of a “no evidence” case. The report of the Enquiry Officer and the consequential order of the Disciplinary Authority are thus perverse and cannot be sustained in law. The Tribunal has rightly adverted to this aspect, examined the material in detail, and passed a reasoned order setting aside the same. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was fully justified in allowing the application preferred by respondent No.1 and in setting aside the order of punishment imposed on respondent No.1 by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30494-DB WP No. 25930 of 2023 Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition dismissed both on delay as well as on merit. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/V List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34