THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22543 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1.
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S.BUILDING,
B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR,
ENQURY-04
OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING, B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. K.S. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. SRI. K. ANANDA,
S/O LATE V.KRISHNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.113/3, DIAGONAL ROAD,
V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU-560004.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. MANJUNATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV AND B.S. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATES FOR R3;
SRI. C. M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION
NO.1103/2017 DATED 20/06/2019 (ANNEXURE - A) BY
ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Sri.K.S.Mallikarjun Reddy learned standing
counsel for the petitioner/Lokayukta, Sri.B.Manjunath
learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 & 2, Sri.B.L.Sanjeev
and Sri.B.S.Srinivas learned counsel for respondent No.3
and Sri.C.M.Nagabhusahana learned counsel for
respondent No.4. Perused the entire material brought on
record.
2. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order
passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore in Application No.1103/2017 dated 20.06.2019.
Respondent No.4 herein, who will hereinafter be referred
to as the applicant, filed Application No.1103/2017 before
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
seeking the Tribunal to quash the order dated 15.12.2016
issued by the second respondent entrusting the
Departmental Enquiry against him under Rule 14A of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1957 to Upalokayukta and also to issue a
writ and to quash the charge memo bearing No.Uplok-
1/DE/734/2016/ARE-8 dated 10.01.2017 issued by the
Additional Registrar, Enquiries-4, Office of the Karnataka
Lokayukta who is the second petitioner herein.
3. Brief facts of the case which culminated in filing
of application as per the version of the applicant are that
the applicant was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the
Department of Public Works, Ports & Inland Water
Transport in the year 1987. Subsequently, he was
promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter, he
was transferred to HBR Layout Sub-division, Bhruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Later he was transferred to
Maruthi Seva Nagar Sub-division of BBMP through order
dated 19.01.2016 and he assumed charge at the
transferred place on 25.01.2016. A notice issued by the
Deputy Registrar of Enquiries-2, Karnataka Lokayukta

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
dated 03.03.2016 was received by the applicant. Through
that notice, the applicant was directed to intimate the
present status of the building bearing No.30, Katha No.36,
ward No.29, which is located at Sy.No.73/1 of
Kacharakkanahalli and Site No.31 of one Smt.Veena and
also the action taken. Through letter dated 27.04.2016 the
applicant submitted his report.
4. The applicant received one more notice from
the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-2 dated 17.06.2016
with a direction to reply to the complaint submitted by one
Sri.H.B.Shivashankar against Sri.Maradi Rangappa. The
applicant submitted his reply. Thereafter, Upalokayukta
forwarded a report to the Principal Secretary, Department
of Urban Development to initiate departmental enquiry
against the applicant under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1957. On that departmental enquiry was entrusted to
Upalokayukta and Upalokayukta consequently directed the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
Additional Registrar of Enquiries-4 to issue articles of
charges against the applicant alleging that the applicant
committed dereliction of duty and has shown negligence in
discharging his duties.
5. The Tribunal on appreciating the submission
made by the parties to the proceedings came to a
conclusion that initiation of departmental enquiry against
the applicant is unjustifiable and thereby the application
filed by the applicant was allowed. Aggrieved by the order
thus passed, the Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court.
6. Arguing the matter, learned counsel who
represents the petitioners contends that as the applicant is
guilty of dereliction of duties and having been in a position
to take appropriate action against the persons who
deviated the Rules and Regulations in respect of the
building bearing No.30, Katha No.36, ward No.29, has not
done so and thereby the applicant has shown negligence
in discharging his duties and he failed to maintain absolute

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
devotion to the duties and thus, has became unbecoming
of a Government servant. Learned Standing Counsel also
states that not taking action pursuant to the complaint
amounts to dereliction of duty but the same was not
observed by the Tribunal and thereby Tribunal went wrong
in quashing the charge memo.
7. Per contra, learned counsel who represents the
respondent submits that the applicant was asked by the
Karnataka Lokayukta through notice dated 03.03.2016
and 17.06.2016 only to submit reply on the allegations
levelled in respect of the subject building and in those two
notices nothing was stated against the applicant. Learned
counsel also contends that the applicant took charge only
on 25.01.2016 and the alleged incident happened much
earlier. Learned counsel also submits that no action was
taken against the persons who were holding the post
during the relevant time and even no notice was issued to
those persons. Thus, initiation of proceedings against the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
applicant is nothing but fixing someone for the misconduct
committed by others, if any, and observing the same and
also on observation that there is clear bar for the
Lokayukta Authorities to entertain the complaint and
initiate action against the applicant in the light of the
provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976,
the tribunal rightly quashed the charge memo and thus,
this writ petition is devoid of merits.
8. There is no denial of the fact that the applicant
was not holding the relevant post at the time of the
alleged deviation of Rules in respect of subject property.
Also, it is not the version of petitioners that the
complainant Sri.H.B.Shivashankar alleged anything against
the applicant. The allegations in the complaint even as per
the version of petitioners is against one Maradi Rangappa,
the then Assistant Executive Engineer at Maruthi Seva
Nagar Sub-division BBMP. Admittedly, no notice was
issued to the said Sri.Maradi Rangappa and no explanation

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
was called for. Also there is no denial of the fact that after
the transfer of Sri Maradi Rangappa three officers held
said post i.e., Sri.Shashidhar Kumar,
Smt.Geetha and Sri.Anil Kumar, as observed by the
Tribunal at para 11 of the impugned order. No satisfactory
reason is stated as to why none of them were fixed with
the liability of dereliction of duties, if any, and why notice
and charge memo was issued only against the applicant.
Thus, all these grounds goes to show that the charge
memo issued is devoid of merits as observed by the
Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that
there are no grounds to interfere with the observations
made or the findings given by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order.
Thus, the following:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57930-DB
WP No. 22543 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010463722021
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
CT:TSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9