- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010251582023 NC: 2026:KHC:52005-DB WP No. 10684 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 10684 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K. S., ADV.) AND: 1. SHRI S. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE SIDDAIAH DEPUTY DIRECTOR (RTD) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES R/AT 804, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 26TH CROSS ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570008. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES 1ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010251582023 NC: 2026:KHC:52005-DB WP No. 10684 of 2023 AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S C DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R2 & 3 R1- SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF 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 ORDER DATED 09/06/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1895/2021, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner – Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court in this writ petition questioning order dated 09.06.2021 in Application No.1895/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder respondent No.1’s Application questioning the Government order dated 04.12.2020 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010251582023 NC: 2026:KHC:52005-DB WP No. 10684 of 2023 entrusting enquiry against respondent No.3 to petitioner – Lokayukta under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs and consequential articles of charge dated 22.12.2020 (Annexure-A8) is quashed. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.S.Mallikarjun Reddy for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.S.C.Deshmukh for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is seen that respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015. More than five years thereafter, under Government order dated 04.12.2020, respondent No.2 referred enquiry against respondent No.1 to the petitioner – Lokayukta under Rule 214 of KCSRs. Consequently, the petitioner was issued with articles of charge dated 22.12.2020. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010251582023 NC: 2026:KHC:52005-DB WP No. 10684 of 2023 4. Articles of charge, naturally relates to the incident that is said to have taken place while respondent No.1 was in service prior to May – 2015. Further, a perusal of the articles of charge, it is seen that the articles of charge is so vague that the petitioner has failed to indicate the date on which the incident has taken place or during the period during which the incident has taken place, on which the enquiry is said to have been initiated. By framing such articles of charge, the purpose of initiating enquiry itself is defeated. The petitioner – Institution is a Specialised Enquiring Authority in the State and it is expected flawless framing of charge. 5. The Tribunal applying Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs has held that since the enquiry is on the incident of the year 2010, articles of charge is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. We do not find any error or illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. There is no reason to disagree with said finding. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010251582023 NC: 2026:KHC:52005-DB WP No. 10684 of 2023 6. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4