- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 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. 26683 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI K ESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE K KRISHANAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK PANCHAYAT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT R/AT 283, ‘BRINDAVANA’, 100 FEET ROAD, 4TH PHASE, 7TH BLOCK, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAO BHOUNSLE, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M S BUILDING, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 DR.B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER IN A. NO.1756 OF 2023 DATED 31.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. 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 K.V.ARAVIND) The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.1756/2023, aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”), has preferred this writ petition. 2. The facts, in brief, are that while the petitioner was working as a Panchayat Development Officer at Chowdanakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kunigal Taluk, one Sri. Shankaralingegowda lodged a complaint dated 02.12.2014 alleging that the petitioner, along with the President of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 Grama Panchayat, had misappropriated funds by executing substandard road-laying works and by engaging child labour. The said complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, who, upon investigation, submitted a report recommending recovery of a sum of Rs.2,14,937/- from the President and Rs.4,29,874/- from the petitioner in respect of two works executed by him, and further recommended initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 2.1 Aggrieved by the recommendations of the Ombudsman, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority quashed the order of the Ombudsman insofar as it related to recovery of the amount. However, it upheld the findings with regard to distribution of job cards to ineligible persons and directed recovery of the amount in that regard. Thereafter, Sri. Shankaralingegowda filed a complaint before the Lokayukta against the petitioner, the Executive Officer of Kunigal Taluk Panchayat, the Adhyaksha, the Panchayat Development Officer, and the Computer Operator of Kottagere Grama Panchayat, alleging that despite the order passed by the Ombudsman, no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 action had been taken against the aforesaid officials. Upon investigation, a report was submitted recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 2.2 The Lokayukta nominated an Enquiry Officer, and articles of charge came to be framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence on record, held that the charges stood proved. Based on the enquiry report, a second show-cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, upon due consideration of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the evidence on record, imposed the penalty of withholding four annual increments without cumulative effect. The said order was assailed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the application, holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on the evidence on record, including the material placed by the Enquiry Officer and the Delinquent Government Officer (DGO). 3. The order of the Tribunal is assailed in the present writ petition on the ground that the very same allegations had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 already been examined by the Ombudsman as well as the Appellate Authority, and the direction for recovery of the amount having been set aside, the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction to enquire into the same issues afresh. It is further contended that the bills were prepared by the Panchayat upon completion of the works and, therefore, the complaint investigated by the Lokayukta is devoid of substance. It is also urged that successive enquiries on the same allegations are impermissible in law. 3.1 It is further contended that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on conjectures and surmises and are not supported by any admissible evidence. It is also contended that the recommendation made by the Lokayukta to the Government to impose the penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect is founded mechanically on the enquiry report, without due application of mind, and therefore, the same is unsustainable. 4. Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, submits that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on duly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 proved evidence. It is contended that the recommendation made by the Lokayukta is founded on the material established in the enquiry. It is further submitted that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, namely withholding of four annual increments without cumulative effect, is a minor penalty. It is urged that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order of penalty and that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application, having due regard to the limited scope of judicial review over the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we notice that the following articles of charge were framed against the DGO–petitioner: “C£ÀħAzsÀ “C£ÀħAzsÀ “C£ÀħAzsÀ “C£ÀħAzsÀ----1111 zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ 2. D¥Á¢vÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ/²æà PÉ. F±Àégï ¥Àæ¸Ázï, ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj, PÉÆvÀÛUÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ, PÀÄtÂUÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f®è DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ 2014-2015£Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¸ÀzÀj PÉÆvÀÛUÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ PÉ.ºÉƸÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÀĺÁvÀä - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 UÁA¢ü gÁ¶ÖæÃAiÀÄ GzÉÆåÃUÀ SÁwæ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr C£ÀÄμÁÖ£ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ 1) UÀÄ£ÁßUÉgÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ¬ÄAzÀ w¥Áà¼ÀzÀ fAiÀiÁ ¸Á¨ï ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ d°è gÀ¸ÉÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2) PÉ.ºÉƸÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ UÀÄ£ÁßUÉgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ªÀÄĹèA ©Ã¢AiÀĪÀgÉUÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À°è PÁªÀÄUÁj ¸ÀAPÉÃvÀ Dgï.¹./992248711660 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¸ÀAPÉÃvÀ Dgï.¹./992248711662 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀzÉà £ÀPÀ° PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ, zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ F JgÀqÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÁV gÀÆ.2,34,458/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀÆ.1,95,416/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß qÁæªÀiÁr ¨ÉÆUÀ¸ï ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À°è eÁ¨ï PÁqïð UÀ¼À£ÀÄß J£ï.JA.Dgï.UÀ½UÉ §¼À¹ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.4,29,824/-UÀ¼À ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉêÀPÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀå ¥Á®£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Àj¥ÀÇtð PÀvÀðªÀå ¤µÉ×AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀzÉ, ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÉêÉUÉ vÀgÀªÀ®èzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉêÁ (¸ÀzÀévÀð£É) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1966 gÀ (3)(i) jAzÀ (iii)£Éà ¤§AzsÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉ J¸ÀVzÀÄÝ, F «ZÁgÀuÁ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉƼÀ¥ÀqÀÄwÛÃgÉAzÀÄ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ. C£ÀħAzsÀ C£ÀħAzsÀ C£ÀħAzsÀ C£ÀħAzsÀ----2222 zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ (¸ÉÖÃmïªÉÄAmï D¥sï EA¥ÀÇåmÉõÀ£ï D¥sï «Ä¸ï PÁAqÉPïÖ) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 3. ²æà ºÉZï.©. ±ÀAPÀgÀ°AUÉÃUËqÀ, ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ¨ÉÆÃgÀ°AUÀAiÀÄå, PÉ. ºÉƸÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ PÉÆvÀÛUÉgÉ ºÉÆç½, PÀÄtÂUÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè (E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ “zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ” JAzÀÄ ¸ÀA¨ÉÆâü¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀ) gÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß F ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1984 gÀ PÀ®A 9 gÀrAiÀÄ°è vÀ¤SÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAr¢ÝzÉ.” 6. The Disciplinary Authority examined two witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P8. The DGO examined himself as DW1, and marked Exs.D1 to D8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge against the DGO stood proved. 6.1 The findings of the Enquiry Officer were considered by the Lokayukta, and upon reappreciation of the evidence, a recommendation was made to impose the penalty of withholding four annual increments without cumulative effect. Pursuant thereto, the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice, to which the DGO submitted his reply. After considering the reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 penalty of withholding four annual increments without cumulative effect, which is a minor penalty. 6.2 The Tribunal, upon examining the material and evidence on record, concurred with the conclusion that the imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority was justified. The Tribunal further held that it could not sit in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer unless it was demonstrated that the enquiry was conducted in a manner that was unfair, arbitrary, or vitiated by procedural irregularity. 7. We have perused the grounds urged by the petitioner assailing the order of the Tribunal. The enquiry report is submitted on duly instituted enquiry. It is not the petitioner’s case that a fair opportunity was denied before the Enquiry Officer. On the contrary, the material on record indicates that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity, which was fair and reasonable. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a disciplinary enquiry is that of preponderance of probabilities. This Court does not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the decision of the Disciplinary Authority unless it is established - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 that the enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner or that the principles of fairness were violated. In the present case, we find that the enquiry proceedings were conducted after due opportunity was granted and that they satisfy the test of fairness. 8. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the complaint in question had already been enquired into by the Ombudsman and that the Appellate Authority had set aside the order of recovery, and therefore the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction to enquire into the same allegations, is not acceptable. The scope of the complaint before the Ombudsman was confined to allegations of misappropriation of funds and the consequential recovery thereof. In contrast, the proceedings before the Lokayukta pertained to alleged misconduct, which operate in a distinct field and serve a different purpose. The enquiry before Lokayukta is not alternative, it is independent. 9. Having regard to the gravity of the charge and the evidence proved on record, we hold that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the minor penalty of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5847-DB WP No. 26683 of 2024 withholding four annual increments without cumulative effect. We find no justifiable or exceptional grounds to interfere either with the order of the Disciplinary Authority or with the impugned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2