- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7585-DB WP No. 4026 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH 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. 4026 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI SRINIVAS S M S/O MUNILAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT., MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU- 560023. R/AT NO.1A, LAKSHMI, 2ND CROSS, ISEC MAIN ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SR. ADV. FOR SRI H N DIVYATEJ, ADV.) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAYA-1, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7585-DB WP No. 4026 of 2026 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560009. 4. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU- 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO APPLICATION NO.911/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU; B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.911/2026 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN ORDERS DATED 02.02.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. 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) The applicant in Application No. 911/2026 has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”), wherein notice has been issued to the respondents without considering the ex parte interim prayer. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7585-DB WP No. 4026 of 2026 2. It is pleaded that the incident in question pertains to the year 2017. The report was submitted on 05.02.2025 by respondent No. 4, and the Articles of Charge were issued on 03.09.2025. It is contended that issuance of the Articles of Charge after a lapse of seven years is impermissible in law. 3. Sri P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri H.N. Divyatej, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the complaint pertains to the year 2017, alleging misconduct or inaction during the said period. It is contended that though the enquiry was completed, the report came to be submitted only on 05.02.2025, and the Articles of Charge were issued on 03.09.2025. 3.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the report submitted by respondent No. 4 is beyond the period prescribed under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, “the 1984 Act”). It is urged that since the issuance of the Articles of Charge, based on the said report, is beyond the permissible time limit, the Tribunal committed an error in not granting stay of further enquiry pursuant to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7585-DB WP No. 4026 of 2026 Articles of Charge. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8793/2023 dated 26.09.2025. 4. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 5. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The complaint is dated 18.05.2017. The Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, submitted a report on 20.02.2018. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 submitted a report on 05.02.2025. Based on the said report, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Articles of Charge were issued on 03.09.2025. 7. The challenge in the present petition is made primarily on the ground of delay. The question as to whether there is delay in submitting the enquiry report and in initiating consequential action is required to be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case. A uniform timeline cannot be prescribed for conducting disciplinary enquiry proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7585-DB WP No. 4026 of 2026 7.1 Moreover, the application is pending consideration before the Tribunal. If the contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel are examined and answered in the present writ petition, the same is likely to affect and prejudice the rival contentions in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 8. However, having regard to the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, during the pendency of consideration of the interim prayer before the Tribunal, the Enquiry Officer is proceeding with the recording of evidence of witnesses, it is open to the petitioner to make an appropriate request before the Tribunal for expeditious consideration of the application. If such a request is made, the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law. 8.1 The submission of the learned Senior Counsel that, if the enquiry is concluded, the pending application would be rendered infructuous, is only an apprehension. The result of the enquiry would be subject to the outcome of the application pending before the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7585-DB WP No. 4026 of 2026 9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20