Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Lokayukta vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15275-DB
WP No. 25947 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26107 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 25947 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No. 26107 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
IN WP No. 25947/2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 001.
by VINUTHA B ...PETITIONER
S
Location: High (BY SRI MADHU KIRAN JAGGA, ADVOCATE FOR
Court of
Karnataka SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SURVEY),
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15275-DB
WP No. 25947 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26107 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. SRI.KANTHARAJU B.,
S/O BORE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT,
O/O ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA.
R/O. No.15, BLOCK 15,
MADHUVANA LAYOUT,
SRIRAMPURA II STAGE,
MYSURU-23.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2023 PASSED BY THE
KSAT BENGALURU IN A.No-5509/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-B.
IN WP No. 26107/2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHU KIRAN JAGGA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SURVEY),
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15275-DB
WP No. 25947 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26107 of 2024
HC-KAR
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. SMT. B.K. SUNANDA,
W/O ARUNKUMAR K. N.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
SURVEYOR,
O/O THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
R/A C/O NANJUNDAPPA,
(RTD) REVENUE INSPECTOR,
MULLAKATTE ROAD,
KALABYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
NAGAMANGALA, TB, BADAVANE (TOWN),
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2023, PASSED BY
THE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.No-4318/2021 AS PER
ANNEXURE-B.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:S
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:15275-DB
WP No. 25947 of 2024
C/W WP No. 26107 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) These two writ petitions arise from common order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal') in Application No.5509/2021 and Application No.4318/2021 wherein the Tribunal passed the following order:
"10. impugned Accordingly, both the applications are allowed. The impugned order of entrustment bearing No.KamE.04/BhooDaSe(3)/2020 dated 06.07.2021 issued by 1st Respondent and produced vide Annexure- A5 and the impugned articles of charge bearing No.Upalok-2/DE-132/2021/ARE-16 dated 10.08.2021 issued by the 2nd Respondent and produced vide Annexure-A6 in A.No.5509/2021 and also the impugned order of entrustment bearing No.KamE.04/BhooDaSe(3)/2020 dated 06.07.2021 issued by 1st Respondent and produced vide Annexure- A8 in A.No.4318/2021 are hereby set aside and both the above applications are remitted back to the Respondent-Government to consider the documents under Annexures-A7 & A8 with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Sakala Service Act, 2011 and Amended Act, 2014 and the Sakala Services Rules, 2012 and after considering those aspects take a decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Same is to be complied with, within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order."
2. Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court questioning the above order passed by the Tribunal quashing the order of entrustment on the ground that there are no -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15275-DB WP No. 25947 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26107 of 2024 HC-KAR reasons to quash the order of entrustment of enquiry to the petitioner-Lokayukta.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri. Madhu Kiran Jagga for learned counsel Sri.Joseph Anthony for the petitioner- Lokayukta and learned Additional Advocate General Sri. Reuben Jacob along with learned AGA Sri. V. Shivareddy for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds urged in the petition would submit that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of entrustment of enquiry and that the observation of the Tribunal is that the remedy would be under the Karnataka Sakala Service Act, 2011 (for short 'Sakala Act') is opposed to the material on record. Further, it is submitted that the entrustment of enquiry against respondent No.2 in each of the writ petitions is in respect of their misconduct and not their action under the Sakala Act. Thus, he would pray for allowing the said writ petitions.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:15275-DB WP No. 25947 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26107 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Sri. Reuben Jacob at the first instance submits that the State has already taken action under the Sakala Act and he invites attention of this Court to order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Nagamangala Taluk, Nagamangala under Sakala Act, which is filed along with the affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue. On going through the said affidavit and the order passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Nagamangala Taluk, Nagamangala, this Court observed that the direction of the Tribunal under impugned order is to take action afresh by examining the entire material on record with regard to entrustment of enquiry to the petitioner-Lokayukta, pointing out paragraph No.9 of the Tribunal's order, for convenience, the portion of the order at paragraph No.9 is extracted below:
"9. ......... Hence, there is no examination of all the materials as required under Section 12(4) of the Lokayukta Act. Hence, in the interest of justice and equity we are of the considered view that the matters are to be remitted back to the Respondent-Government to consider the said aspects and then to take a decision afresh. Hence, applicants have made out a case."-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:15275-DB WP No. 25947 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26107 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. The above portion of the Tribunal's order makes it abundantly clear that as the Government while taking decision under Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, had not examined all the materials and as such, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the respondent-State to consider the said aspect and then to take a decision afresh.
7. Today, learned Additional Government Advocate files affidavit dated 13.03.2026 of the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue enclosing the Government Order dated 12.03.2026 whereunder, the State has taken decision to take action against respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions under Rule 12 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957) for the misconduct alleged against respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions.
8. The Tribunal under impugned order on setting aside the order of entrustment of enquiry on the ground that the State had failed to examine all the material before coming to the conclusion to entrust the enquiry to the petitioner- Lokayukta, remitted the matter back to the State to examine -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15275-DB WP No. 25947 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26107 of 2024 HC-KAR all the material and to take a decision afresh. Since the State has taken afresh decision to take action against respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions under Rule 12 of KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957, we are of the opinion that the State has complied with the directions of the Tribunal and the writ petitions, in view of the subsequent development, needs to be disposed of directing the State to conclude the enquiry under Rule 12 of KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957 within a period of six months.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8