A complaint filed beyond five years is jurisdictionally barred under Section 8(2)(d) absent sufficient-cause satisfaction.

On 16 September 2015, a complaint was filed before the Lokayukta alleging that the Secretary of a Co-operative Credit Society had fabricated records showing certain Government servants, including Yusuf Yakubsab Algur, as weavers and had obtained loans in their names for his own benefit.

A preliminary enquiry found no substance against the Secretary, but suggested that the complainant and other Government servants may themselves have participated in the loan transactions.

The Upalokayukta thereafter recommended disciplinary enquiry against seven Government servants, including the complainant and Algur.

Charges were issued against Algur alleging that he had obtained a loan by falsely representing himself as a weaver, thereby violating Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1966.

The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, and the Upalokayukta recommended withholding four increments with cumulative effect and deferral of promotion for four years.

The State Government imposed those penalties by order dated 19 November 2021.

Algur challenged the penalty before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

By order dated 4 January 2023, the Tribunal quashed the Government order, holding that the enquiry was initiated without complying with Sections 7 and 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and was also vitiated by delay of more than eleven years.

The Upalokayukta challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court.

Whether the proceedings against Algur had transformed from a complaint-based proceeding into a suo motu investigation under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, thereby requiring compliance with Section 9(3)(a) and (b), including furnishing the Upalokayukta’s recorded opinion to the delinquent officer?

Whether the complaint and the consequential disciplinary enquiry were barred by the five-year limitation under Section 8(2)(d) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, in the absence of a recorded finding of sufficient cause for entertaining the delayed complaint?

Whether the Tribunal’s order quashing the penalty warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 authorises the Upalokayukta to investigate actions of public servants where a complaint is made or where, in the Upalokayukta’s opinion, the action could be the subject of a grievance or allegation.

Under Section 9(3)(a) and (b), where an investigation is initiated suo motu, the Upalokayukta must furnish the public servant and competent authority with the recorded opinion initiating the investigation and provide an opportunity to submit comments.

Section 8(2)(d) prohibits investigation of an allegation made after five years from the date of the alleged action, unless the complainant satisfies the Upalokayukta that sufficient cause existed for the delay.

This limitation is jurisdictional and may be raised at any stage, as held in The Karnataka Lokayukta v. Sri. Nagesh S. Naik & Others, W.P. No. 106497 of 2023, decided on 21 July 2026.

The Court also relied on the principles against unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings stated in P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan and UCO Bank v. Rajendra Shankar Shukla.

The Court held that the original complaint was directed exclusively against the Society’s Secretary for alleged fabrication and misuse of loan documents, while Algur and the other Government servants were described as victims.

After the preliminary enquiry found no substance against the Secretary, the proceedings shifted substantially: the Secretary was not proceeded against, whereas the complainant and the alleged victims were treated as delinquent public servants.

This constituted a suo motu investigation under Section 7(2). Consequently, Section 9(3)(a) required the Upalokayukta’s recorded opinion initiating the investigation to be furnished to Algur, but no such opinion was produced or supplied.

The omission was therefore a violation of a mandatory statutory requirement and vitiated the enquiry.

Independently, the alleged loan transaction occurred in 2006, whereas the complaint was filed in 2015, beyond the five-year period prescribed by Section 8(2)(d).

The record contained no statement in the complaint or contemporaneous material explaining when the complainant acquired knowledge of the transaction or establishing sufficient cause for the delay.

Nor had any competent authority recorded satisfaction under the proviso to Section 8(2)(d). The investigation was therefore jurisdictionally barred.

The Court observed that, although prima facie material may have existed against the Government servants, the mandatory procedural and limitation requirements could not be disregarded.

The Tribunal’s order dated 4 January 2023 quashing the Government’s penalty order dated 19 November 2021 was affirmed.

The writ petition filed by the Upalokayukta was dismissed, with no order as to costs.