THE UPA LOKAYUKTA vs NARASIMHA KAMBIL AND ANR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH


TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT PETITION NO. 200642 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

THE UPA-LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA OFFICE,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NARASIMHA KAMBLI S/O NARASAPPA,
AGED: 68 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
BANDALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ. AND DIST. YADAGIRI,
R/O. BEHIND STATION POST OFFICE, YADGIRI.

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI NARENDRA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R2)








Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-

A) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI
AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
19.12.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION No.21104 of 2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.

B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.

C) PASS ANY SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION
DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This writ petition is filed by the Karnataka Upa-
Lokayukta challenging the order dated 19.12.2022
passed in Application No.21104 of 2021 by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi
(for short, ‘ the Tribunal ’).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
3. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the
complaint of one Ayyappa, the investigation was
conducted by the petitioner against respondent No.1
and the report was sent to the competent authority
holding that the charges levelled against respondent
No.1 as proved. The competent authority after
considering the enquiry report, the recommendation
submitted by the petitioner and the replies submitted
by respondent No.1 passed the impugned order of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


punishment of withholding 50% pensionary benefits
permanently.
4. Respondent No.1, aggrieved by the order of
punishment dated 15.09.2021 withholding of 50%
pensionary benefits permanently, approached the
Tribunal in Application No.21104 of 2021.
5. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, allowed the application and set aside the
order of punishment dated 15.09.2021 by order
dated 19.12.2022.
6. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
19.12.2022 passed in Application No.21104 of 2021
filed this writ petition.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner; learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.2.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Tribunal has committed a grave error in re-
appreciating the evidence adduced before the enquiry
officer as if it is an Appellate Court. The said
procedure adopted by the Tribunal is not correct in
view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mihir Kumar Hazara
Choudhary v. Life Insurance Corporation and
1
another . He submits that during the course of
disciplinary enquiry, the charges levelled against
respondent No.1 are proved. Hence, prays to allow
the writ petition.
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1
submits that admittedly, the impugned order came to
be passed by the Tribunal on 19.12.2022 and the
writ petition came to be filed on 14.09.2023. There is
a delay of more than 8 months in filing the writ

1
(2017) 9 SCC 404

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


petition. Hence, he submits that the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches. He also submits that the scope of judicial
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is narrow and to buttress his arguments, he has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another
2
.
v. Chhabi Nath and Others He submits that the
Tribunal considering the entire material on record has
rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
11. It is an undisputed fact that one Ayyappa has lodged
a complaint against respondent No.1. An
investigation was conducted by the petitioner against
respondent No.1 and a report was forwarded to the

2

(2015) 5 SCC 423

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


competent authority holding that the charges levelled
against respondent No.1 are proved. The competent
authority after considering the report, and on the
recommendation submitted by the petitioner, issued
a notice to respondent No.1 seeking reply to the
enquiry report.
12. Respondent No.1 submitted a reply to the show

cause notice denying the contents of the enquiry
report. The competent authority passed the order of
punishment of withholding 50% pensionary benefits
permanently.
13. It is pertinent to state that the Tribunal, while
passing the impugned order, has recorded its finding
that the complainant was a Government servant and
was in the habit of filing complaints against other
Government officials to extract money from them,
which was accepted by the complainant during the
course of cross-examination before the enquiry

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


officer. Respondent No.1 examined three
beneficiaries as DW1 to DW3 and others, who have
categorically stated that respondent No.1 has never
demanded bribe amount, and DW1 has stated that
he has not issued a cheque and has not paid any
amount to respondent No.1. DW2, who is also a
beneficiary, has stated that the complainant has not
collected Rs.500/- from her in order to give it to
respondent No.1.
14. DW3 has also stated that he along with the
complainant and others went to the house of
respondent No.1, and towards the payment of
property tax, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was paid to
respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 handed over
the same to him and told to give a receipt to the
complainant. He has rebutted the allegations made
against him by leading the evidence of DW1 to DW3.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


15. The Tribunal considering the entire material on
record has held that respondent No.1 never
demanded the bribe amount and there is no specific
finding recorded that respondent No.1 has committed
a grave misconduct. As such, the Tribunal has held
that impugned order of punishment passed by the
Disciplinary Authority against respondent No.1 for
withholding 50% pension permanently from the
pensionary benefits cannot be sustained and hence,
quashed the order of punishment and directed the
respondent No.2 to release the withheld pensionary
benefits to respondent No.1.
16. Admittedly, this writ petition is filed under the
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. In view of the exposition of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


3
others , the scope of judicial review under Article
227 of the Constitution is very narrow. In paragraph
31 of its judgment, the Apex Court has held as
follows:
“31. Under Article 227 of the
Constitution, the High Court does not
issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of
the Constitution vests the High Courts
with a power of superintendence which is
to be very sparingly exercised to keep
tribunals and courts within the bounds of
their authority. Under Article 227, orders
of both civil and criminal courts can be
examined only in very exceptional cases
when manifest miscarriage of justice has
been occasioned. Such power, however,
is not to be exercised to correct a
mistake of fact and of law.”
17. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Radhey Shyam
regarding the scope of interference under Article 227

3
(2015) 5 SCC 423

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11294-DB
WP No. 200642 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030089632023


of the Constitution being narrow, and, the findings
recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any error in
the impugned order, as such, we decline to interfere
with the impugned order.
18. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed .
(ii) The pending IAs, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.


Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE



Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE

RK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31
Ct:pk