Karnataka High Court
WP/10684/2023 of KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA Vs SHRI S PUTTASWAMY on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010251582023 NC: 2026:KHC:52005-DB WP No. 10684 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 10684 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10684 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K. S., ADV.)
AND:
1.
SHRI S. PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (RTD)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
R/AT 804, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
26TH CROSS ROAD,
VIDYARANYAPURAM
MYSURU-570008.
2.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES
1ST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
HC-KAR
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
3RD FLOOR, M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S C DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R2 & 3
R1- SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
09/06/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1895/2021, AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner – Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court in this writ petition questioning order dated 09.06.2021 in Application No.1895/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder respondent No.1’s Application questioning the Government order dated 04.12.2020
HC-KAR
entrusting enquiry against respondent No.3 to petitioner – Lokayukta under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs and consequential articles of charge dated 22.12.2020 (Annexure-A8) is quashed.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.S.Mallikarjun Reddy for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.S.C.Deshmukh for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is seen that respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015. More than five years thereafter, under Government order dated 04.12.2020, respondent No.2 referred enquiry against respondent No.1 to the petitioner – Lokayukta under Rule 214 of KCSRs. Consequently, the petitioner was issued with articles of charge dated 22.12.2020.
HC-KAR
4. Articles of charge, naturally relates to the incident that is said to have taken place while respondent No.1 was in service prior to May – 2015. Further, a perusal of the articles of charge, it is seen that the articles of charge is so vague that the petitioner has failed to indicate the date on which the incident has taken place or during the period during which the incident has taken place, on which the enquiry is said to have been initiated. By framing such articles of charge, the purpose of initiating enquiry itself is defeated. The petitioner – Institution is a Specialised Enquiring Authority in the State and it is expected flawless framing of charge.
5. The Tribunal applying Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs has held that since the enquiry is on the incident of the year 2010, articles of charge is contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. We do not find any error or illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. There is no reason to disagree with said finding.
HC-KAR
6. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4