Karnataka High Court
Pujar M B S/O. Bhimappa Pujar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB
WP No. 105793 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.105793 OF 2025 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN S/O. BHIMAPPA PUJAR
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED DEPUTY REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE, SOCIETIES (PENSIONER),
R/O. PLOT NO.4A, 4TH CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR,
DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
9341570141.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
ROOM NO.610, 6TH FLOOR, 3RD GATE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
R/BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING,
AYUB
DESHNUR
Location: High DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
07/07/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.10699/2024 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB
WP No. 105793 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present petition has been filed by the applicant before the Tribunal who is the retired District Registrar of Co-operative Societies challenging the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 10699/2024 on 07.07.2025 whereby the Tribunal by a reasoned order has rejected the challenge made to the order at Annexure-A7 dated 27.07.2023 passed by respondent No.1 entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta as also the challenge made to the Articles of Charge dated 29.09.2023 at Annexure-A8.
2. It must be noticed that the Tribunal by a detailed order has concluded that insofar as the challenge to Annexure-A8, which is the Articles of Charge, the same was premature taking note of the law laid down by the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana - 2006 (12) SCC 28.
3. Insofar as the contention that the order of entrustment was passed without application of mind, said contention was also rejected by following the order in the case of Sri. Shrishail Muchandi vs. The State of Karnataka and others - W.P. No. 200745/2018 and connected matters disposed off on 21.09.2020, while observing that the order of entrustment need not be in detail or elaborate and if there was application of mind to the matter before passing the order, that would suffice. The said order is challenged before this Court.
4. It must be noticed at the outset that the Court is exercising the supervisory jurisdiction while looking into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal and inherently, such jurisdiction is narrow. It must be noticed that in terms of the scheme under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act'), the Lokayukta -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR may make a report under Section 12(3) and the report would be sent to the competent authority with material and evidence and in terms of Section 12(4), the decision is to be taken by the competent authority after examining the report forwarded to it.
5. Sections 12(3) and 12(4) of the Act, reads as follows:
"(3) If after investigation of any action involving an allegation has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority.
(4) The Competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report."-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. The competent authority is required to examine the report forwarded to it under Section 12(3) and in terms of Rule 14-A (2)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules') and is to take a decision after examining the record to either direct an enquiry into the case by Lokayuktha or Upa-lokayukta or direct appropriate disciplinary authority to take action in accordance with Rule 12 of CCA Rules.
7. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the decision taken under Section 12(4) of the Act read with Rule 14-A (2)(iii) of the CCA Rules, must be one which is reflected by a speaking order and reasons must be assigned. Reliance is placed on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Karnataka - ILR 2020 Kar 5037. The contention of the petitioner is that while passing the order under Section 12(4) of the Act read with Rule 14-A(2)(iii) -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR of the CCA Rules, there has to be reflection of application of mind in the order passed. Insofar as such contention, it is necessary to notice that the Division Bench in Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 has made certain observations to the effect that there has to be application of mind which has to be reflected. However, it must be noticed that the observations made in Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 are in the context of the order passed for entrustment which order is not available before this Court to understand the context in which the observations have been made. The observations made at Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 must be limited to the context of the report in the facts of the said case. The observations at Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 read as follows:
"21. Thus, it becomes clear that no discretion is exercised by the competent authority to take a decision, as to whether the enquiry has to be entrusted into the hands of the 2nd respondent- Lokayukta or otherwise. It is a clear case of the competent authority abdicating its discretion to an -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR external agency like the 2nd respondent- Lokayukta.
22. Sub-Section (4) of Section 12 of the Act casts a duty upon the competent authority to examine the report forwarded to it and then take a decision after such examination. A bare perusal of the order entrusting the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Rules depicts flagrant violation of Section 12(4) of the Act as the competent authority has not even examined as required under Section 12(4) of the Act as to whether enquiry requires to be entrusted to Lokayukta or is there any grievance worthwhile to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. All that the Order dated 7.1.2017 would say is the extract of the findings in the report to the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act and the fact that the Upa-Lokayukta has sought enquiry to be entrusted to itself and in those circumstances, the enquiry was entrusted. Perusal of the order sheet would clearly indicate that the reminders were sent to the competent authority by the 2nd respondent to entrust the enquiry to itself."
8. No doubt, if Para 21 and 22 are read as stand alone propositions of law, the arguments of the petitioner -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR may hold water. However, it must be clarified that the observations at Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 are to be read in the context of the order of entrustment and not dehors that.
9. On the other hand, the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Shrishail Muchandi (supra), would be of relevance and the observations made by the Division Bench at Para (f) is to the effect that order of entrustment does not require elaborate reasoning although it should reflect that the Government has applied its mind and then taken a decision. The observations at Para (f) reads as follows:
"(f) Mr. Bajentri and Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Government by the impugned orders has entrusted the enquiry in terms of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules to the Upalokayukta-I without due application of mind and being swayed away by the version emerging from the Lokayukta Report; in support of their legal contention that the Government has to take an independent decision as to entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta in terms of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, they banked upon certain -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR rulings; however, this proposition being well established, hardly needs substantiation; we have examined the impugned orders of the Government whereby the enquiry has been entrusted to the Upalokayukta; such entrustment does not require elaborate reasoning although it should reflect that the Government has applied its mind and then taken a decision, is true; the text and context of these orders show that there is application of mind; this apart, Article 261 of the Constitution of India mandates that full faith and credit shall be given inter alia to public acts & records vide SC & ST OFFICERS WELFARE COUNCIL VS. STATE OF U.P., (1997) 1 SCC 701, the record of proceedings of the Government thus have presumptive value, subject to all just exceptions into which the argued case of the petitioners does not fit;
therefore, we are of the view that there is no merit in this contention, too."
10. The order passed in the case of the State of Karnataka vs. R. D. Nayak - W.P.No. 147724/2020 disposed off on 06.06.2022 is on similar lines. It must be noticed that the statutory requirement under Section 12(3) of the Act is for sending of report along with relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. Under Section 12(4) of the Act, the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR Competent Authority shall examine the report forwarded to it and take a decision.
11. It must be noticed as rightly contended by Sri. G. K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate that the stage under Section 12(4) is the stage where the competent authority is to decide on the basis of the report under Section 12(3) as to whether a case is made out to proceed further in terms of Rule 14-A(2)(iii). Under Rule 14-A(2)(iii), the Competent Authority may either direct an enquiry into the case by Lokayuktha or Upa-lokayukta or direct appropriate disciplinary authority to take action in accordance with Rule 12 of CCA Rules. Accordingly, the stage under Section 12(4) is at a very preliminary and nascent stage of the enquiry process and accordingly, detailed order after enquiry with speaking reasons adverting to the material is not called for.
12. The satisfaction of the Authority under Section 12(4) is that of the competent authority and this Court
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR cannot sit in judgment over such decision while noticing that the duty under Section 12(4) is only to examine the report forwarded to it. Further, it must be noticed that the Division Bench in the case of Sri. Gopal Hanumanth Kase v. The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others - ILR 2018 KAR 2347 has observed as follows:
"In our view, at the given stage of entrusting the matter for inquiry, the Government, as the Competent Authority, was not expected to enter into a detailed or even a summary inquiry with consideration of reply / defence of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 07.12.2017, read as a whole, make it clear that the satisfaction of the Competent Authority about existence of the prima facie case has been indicated therein and that had been sufficient compliance of the requirement of law."
13. The said observations are apt to the stage of Section 12(4) of the Act as the competent authority
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR merely is looking the existence of a prima facie case to proceed further in terms of Rule 14-A(2)(iii).
14. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that report under Section 12(3) makes a request for entrustment of investigation to the Lokayuktha and accordingly, the order under Section 12(4) is one passed to dictation and without application of mind cannot be accepted on the ground that the order under Section 12(4) is a detailed order passed and it is for the competent authority either to entrust investigation to the Lokayuktha or give direction for the disciplinary authority to proceed further. Such discretion cannot be stated to be not exercised merely because the recommendation of the Lokayuktha with a request for investigation be entrusted to the Lokayuktha is accepted by the Government.
15. It must be noticed that insofar as the challenge laid to the Articles of Charge is concerned, clearly the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kunisetty
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR Satyanarayana (supra) is clear. The observations at Paragraph No.14 of the said judgment is extracted below:
"The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance."
16. Accordingly, at the stage of framing of articles of Charge, there is no actionable case insofar as the merits of the allegations unless it is demonstrated that there is no jurisdiction. In the present case, there is no challenge to the jurisdictional aspect is concerned. Accordingly,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR challenge to the Articles of Charge would also fail. The Tribunal has adverted to both the aspects regarding application of mind and passing of order under Section 12(4) of the Act as well as the challenge as regards Articles of Charge being premature.
17. We are in full agreement with the said decision and in light of the nature of jurisdiction that is exercised in the present matter, we uphold the order of the Tribunal and refuse to interfere with the matter.
18. Insofar as the reliance on the order in the case of The Karnataka Lokayuktha and another v. Sri. H. N. Niranjan - W.P.No.43079/2015 disposed off on 06.03.2017 by the petitioner, a close reading would indicate that this Court has approved the observations of the Tribunal and a closer scrutiny of the observations of the Tribunal would reveal that in the facts of the present case, there was no reference regarding examination of the report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayuktha. However,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR that is not the case in the present matter wherein the order under Section 12(4) not only refers to the report of the Lokayukta but has also specifically stated that it has applied its mind. Whenever there is narration of facts followed by the observation that the Authority has 'applied its mind', such words must be read in the context of the preceding observation of the order and the order must be read in its entirety. Clearly it is to be stated that the Authority has applied its mind. Further, it must be noticed that the order in the case of Sri. H. N. Niranjan (supra) was also adverted to by the Division Bench in the judgment of Sri. Gopal Hanumanth Kase (supra) after which the Division Bench has rightly observed as noticed in para 11 above.
19. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Babu Verghese and others vs. Bar Council of Kerala and others - (1999) 3 SCC 422 to the effect that when the statute provides a particular manner of action must be
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10502-DB WP No. 105793 of 2025 HC-KAR taken in such manner or not at all, is an accepted judicial principle which however would have no bearing on the present facts when the only aspect that is being challenged which could be looked into at this stage is as to the application of mind under Section 12(4) of the Act and in deciding to proceed under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules which we have upheld and held cannot be called in question as there is due application of mind. We do not find that the competent authority has taken recourse to an action contrary to the procedure stipulated under the statutory scheme.
20. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE VP, CT:vp