Karnataka High Court
Sri H N Jayasimha vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB
WP No. 13982 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 13982 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI H. N. JAYASIMHA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O H. N. NARAHARI RAO,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAHADEVAPURA SUB DIVISION,
BBMP BANGALORE,
R/A No.15, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
5TH STAGE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BANGALORE-560085.
Digitally signed 2. SRI T. S. PRASANNA KUMAR,
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Location: HIGH S/O T. H. SREERANGAIAH,
COURT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
No.1, BLDG SUB DIVISION,
V. V. TOWER, BENGALURU-560001.
R/AT No.119, B4, SHASRAVATHI BLOCK,
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560047.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB
WP No. 13982 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND
WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
M. S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2021 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH IN APPLICATION No.6873 AND 6874/2019
VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB
WP No. 13982 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Ranganatha S. Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The unsuccessful applicants in Application Nos.6873 and 6874 of 2019 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 28.06.2021, whereby the applicants had assailed the Articles of Charge and the entrustment of enquiry under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957') to respondent No.3.
3. One Sri Thimmarayappa and other residents of Agara Post, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South District, Bengaluru, filed a complaint on 10.08.2004 against the BDA Officers and the Engineer, Sri Venkategowda, Koramangala, alleging failure to -4- NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR prevent encroachments and to secure the burial ground. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were issued notice by respondent No.3. The complaint did not name the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 submitted replies to multiple notices contending that the alleged complaint pertains to the years 2004 and 2006, whereas he reported to duty only on 04.07.2018. Petitioner No.2 submitted a similar reply contending that he reported to duty on 05.01.2009. Respondent No.3, on consideration of the report submitted by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1979, indicated, prima facie, commission of misconduct by the petitioners and requested entrustment of enquiry under Section 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. Respondent No.1, by order dated 10.07.2019, entrusted the enquiry to respondent No.3, who thereafter issued Articles of Charge on 06.09.2019.
4. The petitioners, challenging the order of entrustment under Section 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 and the Articles of Charge, preferred applications before the Tribunal. The petitioners reiterated that the complaint pertains to the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR years 2004 and 2006, whereas they were transferred and reported at a later stage, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the alleged misappropriation of public funds. The Tribunal, however, rejected the applications holding that the matter is at the stage of issuance of Articles of Charge and, hence, the applications are premature. The Tribunal further held that continuation of the enquiry would not affect or prejudice the rights of the petitioners and, accordingly, dismissed the applications.
5. Sri Ranganatha S. Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the complaint of 2004 was against the BDA officials alleging failure to protect and prevent encroachments on the burial ground. It is further submitted that the complaint of 2006 pertained to road repairs, improper maintenance of street lights, asphalting and sanitary works, and was directed against the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.1 reported to duty as Assistant Executive Engineer at HSR Sub-Division only on 04.07.2018, much after both the complaints. It is further submitted that, at the relevant time, -6- NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR the area in question was within the jurisdiction of the City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli and not under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
5.1 Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.2 reported to duty in the BBMP only on 05.01.2009. It is submitted that both the complaints did not name the petitioners. Respondent No.3, based on the report of the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act indicating prima facie material of misconduct against the petitioners. The said report, it is contended, has been submitted without application of mind and without due consideration of the replies furnished by the petitioners.
5.2 Similarly, it is submitted that the State Government, without application of mind, passed an order under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 entrusting the enquiry to respondent No.3. Learned counsel further submits that though the Tribunal has acknowledged that the petitioners' names do not find place in the complaints and that the enquiry is belated, it nevertheless proceeded to hold that once materials are -7- NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR found, the proceedings cannot be set aside on the ground of delay. With the above submissions, learned counsel prays for setting aside the order of entrustment and the Articles of Charge.
6. Per contra, Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was prepared on the basis of the report of the Additional Registrar of Enquiries and the spot inspection conducted by the Upalokayukta with the assistance of experts, wherein it was found that various works executed by the BBMP were substandard, resulting in misappropriation of public funds. Learned counsel submits that once substantive material is available against the petitioners, delay in initiation of proceedings cannot be a ground to interdict the enquiry proceedings. It is further submitted that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the applications as being premature and raised only on technical grounds.
7. Smt. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No.3 and contends that the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR applications before the Tribunal were premature, and that continuation of the enquiry would not affect the rights of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners will have fair opportunity in the enquiry to substantiate their defence.
8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. One Sri Thimmarayappa and other residents of Agara Post, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South District, Bengaluru, filed a complaint on 10.08.2004 alleging inaction in protecting the burial ground from illegal encroachments by failing to put up a compound wall. The said complaint was directed against the Commissioner and other officers of the BDA. Another complaint dated 01.04.2006 pertained to failure to repair roads, improper maintenance of street lights, asphalting and sanitary works, and was directed against the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Bengaluru. Petitioner No.1 reported to duty in the BBMP on 04.07.2018 and petitioner No.2 on 05.01.2009. At the relevant time, the City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli, did not form part of the BBMP. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR
10. Respondent No.3 submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act referring to the substandard works carried out by the BBMP. The petitioners specifically contended that, during the period of the complaints, they were not serving in the BBMP and were not responsible for execution of any of the works alleged therein. The report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act records that Bommanahalli became part of the BBMP after 07.01.2000. However, the list of works recorded in the Section 12(3) report is silent as to the dates of execution. What emerges from the report is that, upon inspection by the Upalokayukta along with a team of experts, it was found that the works executed were substandard, and officials in position as on the date of inspection were held responsible without verifying the officers who were actually responsible for execution of such substandard works. This, in the considered view of this Court, indicates non-application of mind. The report is also silent on the specific plea of the petitioners that they were not serving in the BBMP as on the dates of the complaints of 2004 and 2006.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR
11. The State Government, by merely reiterating the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the recommendation of the Upalokayukta, without any independent application of mind, passed an order under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 entrusting the enquiry to respondent No.3. A combined reading of the report under Section 12(3) of the Act and the order under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 demonstrably reveals non-application of mind.
12. The Articles of Charge dated 06.09.2019 are a consequence of the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Once it is held that the report under Section 12(3) and the order of entrustment under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 suffer from non-application of mind and lack of consideration of the material on record, the Articles of Charge would also stand vitiated as a fait accompli.
13. We are inclined to entertain this petition for an additional reason. The complaints are of the years 2004 and 2006, whereas notices were issued for the first time only in 2018. Thereafter, the report under Section 12(3) was submitted on 04.04.2019, the order of entrustment was passed on
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR 10.07.2019, and the Articles of Charge were issued on 06.09.2019. Thus, respondent No.3 is enquiring into incidents of 2004 and 2006. The petitioners have specifically raised the plea of delay and laches. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, has in categorical terms recorded delay in the proceedings, but nevertheless proceeded to hold that the enquiry cannot be set aside on the ground of delay and laches. This finding, in our considered view, is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan1.
14. In light of the aforesaid judgment, the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 after a lapse of more than ten years are clearly hit by delay and laches. The delay in initiation and conclusion of the proceedings not only prejudices the interest of the petitioners but also affects the interest of the enquiring authority as well as the State. Having regard to the nature of the allegations for which the enquiry has been initiated, the aspect of delay assumes significance. We are of the considered view that if the enquiry proceedings are 1 1998 (4) SCC 154
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR permitted to continue after such protracted delay, it would seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioners.
15. Another reason for entertaining the petition is that respondent No.3 has no answer to the specific contention of the petitioners that, as they had not reported to duty in the BBMP during the relevant period, i.e., in 2004 and 2006, they cannot be charged for the alleged inaction or misappropriation of public funds arising out of substandard works. This circumstance establishes that no prima facie case exists against the petitioners. When the petitioners have demonstrated before this Court that no prima facie case is made out, continuation of the disciplinary proceedings would seriously prejudice their rights. Once such a finding is recorded, it is well within the scope of judicial review to quash the proceedings.
16. In view of the foregoing, we pass the following order:
Order
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 28.06.2021 in Application Nos.6873 & 6874/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33787-DB WP No. 13982 of 2021 HC-KAR
(iii) The order dated 10.07.2019 (Annexure-15) passed by respondent No.2 and Articles of charge dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure-16) issued by respondent No.4 are set aside.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26