- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5590-DB WP No. 10564 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 10564 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDINGS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI.G.S.V.SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O G H SHIVANANDAPPA, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (DISMISSED) R/O NO.853/C, 8TH MAIN, GOKULAM, 3RD STAGE, MYSORE-572111. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 3. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ESIS MEDICAL SERVICES, S.NIJALINGAPPA ROAD, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5590-DB WP No. 10564 of 2021 II BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.4338/2016 DATED 12.02.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. [ THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This writ petition by the Lokayukta is directed against order dated 12.02.2018 in Application No.4338/2016 (Annexure-A), whereby Articles of Charge issued against the first respondent is quashed with an observation that if the applicant is acquitted in a criminal case and reinstated, the respondent i.e. Lokayukta therein can restart the enquiry from the stage where it stood on the date of dismissal of the applicant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5590-DB WP No. 10564 of 2021 2. Heard Sri. K Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for respondent Nos. 2. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: The first respondent was working as Office Superintendent in the Department of Labour. He was convicted on 16.06.2011 for the offences committed under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Based on the conviction, he was dismissed from service on 09.12.2011. Thereafter, Articles of Charges were issued by the petitioner on reference by the State Government on 24.08.2012. The first respondent had preferred criminal appeal in Crl.A.No. 650/2011 before this Court questioning the conviction. The said appeal came to be allowed by judgment dated 13.07.2018 and in pursuance to acquittal, the first respondent was reinstated into service by the second respondent. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the petitioner preferred SLP - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5590-DB WP No. 10564 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the judgment dated 13.07.2018 in Crl.A.No. 650/2011. The first respondent approached the Tribunal in the above stated application questioning the Articles of Charge and under impugned order, the Tribunal passed the following order: “In view of the above, the application is partly allowed. The articles of charge issued on 24.08.2012 is quashed. It is made clear that if the applicant is acquitted in the criminal case and reinstated, the respondent can restart the enquiry from the stage where it stood on the date of dismissal of applicant.” 4. Learned counsel Sri. K Prasanna Shetty appearing for the petitioner-Lokayukta urges various grounds including the grounds urged in the writ petition in support of his prayer/case to quash the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, on hearing learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal while quashing the Articles of Charge, has protected the interest of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5590-DB WP No. 10564 of 2021 State as well as the petitioner-Lokayukta. However, the Lokayukta has not exercised the liberty granted to it while acquitting the first respondent herein vide judgment dated 13.07.2018 in Crl.A.No.650/2021 and in view of the observation made in Paragraph No.5 of the impugned order, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. Till date, the Lokayakta has failed to exercise the liberty granted by the Tribunal. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BSV CT:bms