- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3347-DB WP No. 10600 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST 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. 10600 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, REP. BY ITS INVESTIGATING OFFICER, SRI. C. MADUSUDANA, S/O M.CHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, POLICE INSPECTOR, I/C DY.S.P., KLA, DAVANAGERE - 577 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN REDDY K. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI Y. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, RETD. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, 'B' BLOCK, SARASWATHINAGAR, DAVANAGERE -577 004. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3347-DB WP No. 10600 of 2025 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 003. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA, BANDRA CANAL DIVISION, BASABAPATNA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No.6019/2021, AS PER ANNEXURE-B. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3347-DB WP No. 10600 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard Sri K.S. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Notice to respondent No.1 is served. 2. Respondent No.1 was before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Application No.6019/2021 with a prayer to issue a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to regularize the suspension period from 10.05.2010 to 20.04.2011 in terms of representations at Annexure-A11 and A12 dated 29.06.2021 with all consequential benefits. 3. The Tribunal observing that no disciplinary enquiry proceedings were initiated and there is no other reason for the respondent-Authorities to withhold the benefits, to which the applicant is entitled to, allowed the said application and directed the authorities to pay all consequential including financial benefits to respondent No.1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3347-DB WP No. 10600 of 2025 4. Against the said order, the petitioner-Lokayukta filed Review Application No.159/2023 contending that respondent No.1 was prosecuted in a criminal proceeding, which resulted in his acquittal, against which Criminal Appeal No.1020/2022 was filed, which is pending. In view of the pendency of the appeal, it was contended that respondent No.1 was not entitled for any relief. The said review also came to be dismissed, against which the petitioner-Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Sri K.S. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the review filed by the petitioner- Lokayukta before the Tribunal is not considered in its proper perspective by taking note of the criminal appeal pending before this Court. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal instead of directing consideration of representation, issued positive direction to regularize the suspension period, which needs to be set aside. 5.1 Learned Additional Government Advocate also supports the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for allowing the present petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3347-DB WP No. 10600 of 2025 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that it is not a case for interference against the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Admittedly, Crime No.02/2010 was registered against respondent No.1 by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Davanagere, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(i)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed and in the criminal proceedings, respondent No.1 was acquitted, against which, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.1020/2022 before this Court. On registration of Crime No.02/2010 against respondent No.1, he was suspended on 24.04.2010 and the same was revoked. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was initiated against respondent No.1 on the alleged offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1 retired form service. 7.1 Respondent No.1 had submitted representations to respondent Nos.2 to 4 requesting them to regularize the period of suspension as no departmental enquiry was conducted. As respondent Nos.2 to 4 had failed to take action against the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3347-DB WP No. 10600 of 2025 representation, respondent No.1 was before the Tribunal. Taking note of the fact that there was no departmental enquiry conducted, the Tribunal rightly directed regularization of the period of suspension of respondent No.1 and to pay all consequential and financial benefits. Moreover, it is to be noted that by that time, respondent No.1 had already retired from service. 8. In the absence of initiating or conducting any departmental enquiry, pendency of the appeal in respect of acquittal of respondent No.1 in criminal proceedings would have no bearing on the regularization of suspension period of respondent No.1. 9. There is no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11