- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 9455 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 4. SRI. H. K. RUDRAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 RETIRED DEPUTY DIRECTOR (KVJ), ZP DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA, HIREMALALI POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 221. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI DANAPPA P PANIBHATE, ADV. FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN A. NO. 6151/2017; B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A. NO. 6151/2017 (ANNEXURE-B); C) DISMISS THE CONTEMPT APPLICATION BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION 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 S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner – Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by its Registrar is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 16.12.2020 in Application No.6151/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the respondent No.4's application is allowed, quashing the impugned order of penalty dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 07.12.2016, imposing penalty of reduction of pay to a lower stage in excise of power under Rule 8(iv-a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti for petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with learned Additional Government Advocate SriV.Shivareddy for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel Sri.Danappa P. Panibhate for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti submits that the Tribunal committed an error while setting aside the order of penalty instead of remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh order. He submits that whenever the Tribunal or Courts find that order of penalty suffers from any infirmity, it is for the Tribunal or Court to remand the matter to the Disciplinary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 Authority or Enquiry Authority to proceed further from the stage of infirmity. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal has quashed the impugned order of penalty on the ground that the reply submitted by respondent No.4 to the second show cause notice is not considered and on the ground that the reduction of pay to a lower stage is for an indefinite period which is impermissible under Rule 59(b) of KCSRs. It is submitted that, if that is so, the Tribunal ought to have directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 4. During the course of hearing, we had queried the learned Additional Government Advocate as to whether the State has preferred a writ petition against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. To the said query, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Government submitted that affidavit dated 27.02.2026 of the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru has been filed indicating that the Government had taken a decision not to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 file writ petition against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, he submits that presently the Government has taken a decision to support the prayer of the petitioner-Lokayukta. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.4 had suffered conviction under Judgment dated 13.02.2023 in Special CC.No.143/2021 and the same is pending in a Criminal Appeal No.469/2023 before this Court. However, it is submitted that there is no stay of conviction and there is only suspension of sentence. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the Tribunal is justified in quashing the impugned order of penalty dated 07.02.2016 on the ground that the reply submitted by respondent No.4 to the second show cause notice is not considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as on the ground that the order of penalty is un-implementable on retirement of respondent No.4. He further submits that there is no material whatsoever, to prove the charge against - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 respondent No.4. He further submits that it was a joint enquiry against three persons and other two DGOs have been exonerated in the enquiry held, only proving the charge against respondent No.4. It is submitted that, the reason for acquitting or exonerating other two accused would hold good for fourth respondent also. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. When we queried learned counsel for respondent No.4 as to whether he has challenged the order of the Tribunal, he submits that the fourth respondent has not challenged impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Be that as it may, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 16.12.2020 would indicate that impugned order of penalty dated 07.02.2016 is quashed only on the ground that reply submitted to the second show cause notice by respondent No.4 is not considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as on the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 ground that reduction of pay to a lower stage cannot be indefinite in terms of Rule 59(b) of KCSRs. If that were to be the defect found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the reply submitted to the second show cause notice and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS VS. RAJIT SINGH1 has observed that where the Court or Tribunal finds defect or infirmity in the enquiry or the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Court/Tribunal shall remit it back to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further from the stage infirmity is pointed out. In the instant case, the infirmity is non-consideration of the reply submitted by the fourth respondent. In that circumstance, the Tribunal ought to have remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the reply submitted by fourth respondent and to pass fresh orders. 1 (2022) 15 SCC 254 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 9. During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the fourth respondent was convicted in Special CC.No.143/2021 by judgment dated 13.02.2023. The said conviction was communicated to the State Government by Letter dated 27.04.2023 of the Lokayukta. In terms of Rule 213 of KCSRs, good conduct on behalf of the Government servant is a condition precedent for receiving pension. Though the petitioner-Lokayukta communicated the conviction of respondent No.4, the respondent-State authorities have not initiated any action in terms of Rule 213 of KCSRs. Today, memo dated 03.03.2026 along with correspondence are filed. The document No.6 therein would indicate that a show cause notice dated 27.02.2026 is issued to respondent No.4 as to why action under Rule 213 of KCSRs shall not be initiated. Paragraph 2 of the memo would indicate names of 4 officials, who are responsible and who are handling the file at the relevant point of time, who have failed to take action in terms of Rule 213 of KCSRs. It is also seen from the document produced along with memo - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 dated 27.02.2026 of the State Government that respondent No.4 has suffered four punishments in four different departmental enquiries i.e., under Government Order dated 24.11.2021, respondent No.4 has suffered punishment of withholding of 5% pension for period of two years; under Government Order dated 02.08.2021, respondent No.4 has suffered punishment of withholding of 10% pension permanently; under Government Order dated 04.12.2021, respondent No.4 has suffered punishment of withholding 5% of pension for a period of 5 years and recovery of Rs.32,070/-; and under Government Order dated 01.09.2021, respondent No.4 was imposed with punishment of withholding 20% of pension permanently. 10. It is a fit case to take action against the officials who have failed to perform their duty and to take action in terms of Rule 213 of KCSRs against respondent No.4. We hope and trust that the Government would take appropriate action against those officials. 11. In the above circumstances, the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13715-DB WP No. 9455 of 2023 ORDER a) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 16.12.2020 in Application No.6151/2017 is modified directing the respondent-State Government to proceed from the stage of considering the reply to the second show cause notice and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. b) Time for compliance: 6 weeks. c) The action shall be taken against the officials within a period of 6 months and place the compliance report before the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka. d) Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms