- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH 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. 24119 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S BUILDINGS, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. T. THAMMAIAH S/O THAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER O/O THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SWD) B.B.M.P 9TH FLOOR, BDA COMPLEX, JAYANAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 011 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 29.08.2019, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2430/2018 VIDE ANNX-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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) 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, assailing the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Application No.2430/2018, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 and set aside the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.2–State. The Tribunal further directed the State to extend and settle all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, in favour of respondent No.1 within the stipulated time. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 was initially appointed as an Assistant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 Engineer in the Public Works Department. Subsequently, he was deputed to serve in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Yediyur Ward, where he worked from July 2010 to December 2011. Thereafter, by order dated 21.12.2011, he was transferred to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. 3. During the tenure of the respondent No.1 in the BBMP, a complaint came to be lodged by one Ramesh against respondent No.1 before the Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the respondent No.1 had facilitated the unauthorized renovation of the building belonging to New Shanthi Hotel, Yediyur, without obtaining the requisite permission from the BBMP. Acting on the said complaint, the Karnataka Lokayukta initiated an enquiry and issued notice to respondent No.1. In response thereto, respondent No.1 submitted his explanation denying the allegations levelled against him, including the allegation that he had colluded with the owner of the building by accepting illegal gratification. He contended that appropriate action had, in fact, been taken against the owner of the building and that there was no dereliction of duty on his part. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 4. Upon completion of investigation, the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act to the State Government. On receipt of the said report, the State Government passed an order under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and initiated departmental proceedings against respondent No.1. An Enquiry Officer was thereafter appointed and charges were framed against the respondent No.1 as under: " That, you - D:G.O...T.Thammaiah, while working as Assistant Engineer of Yadiyuru ward in Banashankari Sub Division of BBMP, Bengaluru (herein after referred to as Deliquent Government official 'DGO' for short), you did not visit the premises of New Shanthi Hotel near Sri. Ganesh Temple in Yadiyuru Ward of BBMP, Bengaluru to verify and inspect whether the owner of the building had taken required permission and sanction to undertake renovation of the building and work of construction of staircase, till! receipt of notice dated: 6/1/2011 and replied that no renovation work was noticed at the said hotel premises and even after directed by AEE on 29/01/2011 to take action against the owner of the building you failed to take action till your transfer on 21/12/2011 from the said post to KIADB and thereby committed an act which unbecoming of a government servant and thus you are guilty of misconduct under u/s - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (conduct) Rules, 1966." 5. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry and upon consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in the proceedings, held the charges against respondent No.1 to be proved and submitted his report accordingly. Based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect by impugned order. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the 1st respondent approached the Tribunal in Application No.2430/2018. 7. The Tribunal, upon re-appreciation of entire evidence on record, passed the impugned order by setting aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 8. Heard Sri K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Lokayukta and Sri Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner–Lokayukta, while advancing several contentions, primarily contended that the Disciplinary Authority, upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, was justified in imposing the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect on respondent No.1. It is submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the said order. 10. It is further contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Ramesh. Though the complainant himself was not examined during the enquiry, the prosecution examined P.W.1, namely, Suresh Basalingappa Turamuri, Scrutiny Officer, Karnataka Lokayukta, and produced nine documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9. According to the learned counsel, the evidence on record clearly establishes that respondent No.1 had permitted the owner of New Shanthi Hotel to undertake unauthorized renovation works, including the construction of a concrete staircase on the southern side of the building and the installation of two mercury lamps on an electric pole situated in front of the hotel. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 11. It is further contended that, despite being aware of the unauthorized construction and notwithstanding complaints received in that regard, respondent No.1 failed to initiate any action for demolition of the illegal structure, thereby exhibiting dereliction of duty. In the circumstances, the charges framed against respondent No.1 stood duly proved and the Disciplinary Authority rightly imposed the penalty in question. However, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and erred in setting aside the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 12. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Karnataka Lokayukta and prays to allow the petition. 13. No notice was issued to the 1st respondent - applicant since the office objections were complied with only on 07.04.2026. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously perused the entire material available on record, including the enquiry report, the order of the Disciplinary Authority, and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 15. 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 2018. The said order was assailed by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal in the same year, and the Tribunal, by order dated 29.08.2019, set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The present writ petition has been filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta in the year 2021, after a lapse of nearly two years. Though the writ petition was instituted in the year 2021, the office objections were not complied with by the petitioner–Lokayukta until 07.04.2026, and the matter remained pending in the registry for nearly five and a half years. This conduct indicates a lack of due diligence in prosecuting the present proceedings. 16. 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 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 himself did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. Despite the same, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to conclude the enquiry solely on the basis of the evidence of PW.1, namely the Scrutiny Officer of the Karnataka Lokayukta, and submitted his report. The Disciplinary Authority, relying upon the said report, imposed the penalty on respondent No.1. 17. 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. 18. 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29312-DB WP No. 24119 of 2021 the order of penalty imposed on respondent No.1 by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/K List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10