- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 10193 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN REDDY K. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S. BASAVARAJU, S/O M. SANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BEDARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH, CHALLAKERE (TQ), CHITRADURGA (DIST) - 577 501, R/AT No.255/B, 7TH CROSS(WEST), NEAR HOTEL GREEN PARK, J.C.R EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EX-OFFICIO, UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE ON IA DATED 29.10.2024 FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 IN APPLICATION No. 250/2021, AS PER ANNEXURE-A. 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri K.S. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-Lokayukta and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 2. The instant petition is preferred by the Karnataka Lokayukta challenging the order dated 20.11.2024 passed on I.A. No.I in Application No. 250/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”). 3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1-DGO (Delinquent Government Official), belonged to the Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department. While working as a Panchayath Development Officer (PDO), one Basavareddy lodged a complaint against him alleging mala fide intention in not supplying water to the tank. It was further alleged that one Nagareddy had fenced the road with an intention to cause inconvenience to the complainant and that, despite the complaint being brought to the notice of respondent No.1, no action was taken. 3.1 The petitioner–Lokayukta initiated a departmental enquiry against respondent No.1 by issuing a notice, to which respondent No.1 submitted his reply. Upon completion of the enquiry, the petitioner recommended imposition of the penalty of withholding of annual increments with cumulative effect. Contending that the enquiry was unfair and founded on a false - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 complaint, respondent No.1 questioned the recommendation before the Tribunal by filing Application No.250/2021. 3.2 The Tribunal, by order dated 13.03.2023, set aside the orders dated 31.07.2019 and 17.03.2020 and remitted the matter to the Enquiry Officer with a direction to frame proper Articles of Charge in accordance with the averments made in the complaint and to conduct a fresh enquiry, after affording opportunity to both parties to file their replies and to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of four months. 3.3 The petitioner failed to give effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2023. Instead, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal seeking extension of time by a further period of four months to nominate new Enquiry Officer and to complete the enquiry as directed earlier. In the said application, various reasons were stated to justify the prayer for extension of time. 3.4 The Tribunal, noticing that even after a lapse of one and a half years from the date of its order no fresh enquiry had been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 conducted, and finding a lack of reasonableness in the request for extension, rejected the application. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to close the enquiry proceedings and directed the petitioner to extend all consequential benefits, including financial benefits, to the applicant–respondent herein. 4. Sri K. S. Mallikarjuna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the delay in concluding the fresh enquiry, as directed by the Tribunal earlier, was on account of the reasons stated in the application. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the reasons assigned for the delay in completing the enquiry. Learned counsel contends that the misconduct alleged is serious in nature and, having regard to the gravity of the charges; the Tribunal ought to have granted an extension of time. 5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we notice that the complaint against respondent No.1 is dated 19.06.2015. Respondent No.1 participated in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 enquiry, which was thereafter concluded. Based on the findings of the enquiry, the petitioner–Lokayukta recommended imposition of the penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. 7. Aggrieved by the said recommendation, respondent No.1 preferred Application No.250/2021 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while disposing of the said application by order dated 13.03.2023, remitted the matter to the Enquiry Officer. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: " Matter is remitted back to the enquiry officer to frame the correct articles of charge as per the averments of the complaint and serve the same on the applicant again and then proceed in the matter by conducting fresh enquiry as against the applicant by giving an opportunity to both the sides to adduce their evidence, if any, by way of oral and documentary evidence and then to submit his fresh enquiry report. If the same, enquiry officer is not available for any reason then the disciplinary authority has to appoint another enquiry officer to conduct the fresh enquiry. The enquiry proceedings are to be concluded within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 8. The order of remand mandated the Enquiry Officer to frame proper Articles of Charge in accordance with the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 averments made in the complaint and to conduct a fresh enquiry after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. It was further observed that, in the event the same Enquiry Officer was not available, the Disciplinary Authority was required to appoint another Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry afresh. The Tribunal granted a period of four months to complete the fresh enquiry. 9. The petitioner, however, after a lapse of more than one and a half years, filed an application before the Tribunal seeking extension of time. The Tribunal rejected the said application. A perusal of the reasons assigned therein does not disclose any bona fide attempt on the part of the petitioner to comply with the order of the Tribunal. The reasons assigned are merely casual administrative explanations and are wholly insufficient to justify the inordinate delay. 10. Be that as it may, we find certain additional aspects which clearly indicate non-application of mind on the part of the petitioner. The complaint is dated 19.06.2015 and alleges inaction for a period of about twenty days prior thereto. However, the Articles of Charge record that respondent No.1– - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 delinquent Government official retired from service on 31.05.2015. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said date is a typographical error, we are not persuaded to accept the submission. The Articles of Charge specifically record the date of retirement of respondent No.1 as 31.05.2015. 11. It appears that the Tribunal, noticing the aforesaid discrepancy, had directed framing of proper Articles of Charge. The petitioner, however, has failed to comply with the said direction even after the lapse of more than one and a half years. We, therefore, called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to ascertain the date of retirement of respondent No.1. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.1 retired in the year 2025. This only reinforces the conclusion that, there was non-application of mind in framing the Articles of Charge. 12. The manner in which the enquiry has been dealt with demonstrates a lack of seriousness, if not an absence of intent, to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law. In such - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7183-DB WP No. 10193 of 2025 circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in refusing to extend the time limit earlier fixed for completion of the enquiry. 13. We find no justifiable reason to permit the petitioner to recommence the enquiry afresh, particularly when no steps have been taken to comply with the order of remand since March 2023. While dismissing the writ petition, we direct the respondent-authorities to extend all consequential benefits, including financial benefits, to respondent No.1 within a period of two months, in the event the order dated 20.11.2024 has not already been complied with. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5