/35332/2025 of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SRI N. ESWARACHARI on 24 August 2026

ORDER

PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3817/2003 BY ORDER DATED 15.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS) The State of Karnataka along with the Divisional Commissioner, Mysuru Division and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District have filed this writ petition

HC-KAR

challenging an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.3817/2003 dated 15.03.2023. On the previous occasion, when the matter had come up before this Court, this Court noticed the fact that the writ petition was filed two and half years after the order was passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, when we noticed the fact that the writ petition was filed without explaining the delay, learned AGA sought for a short accommodation. Accordingly, today the learned AGA has filed a memo along with an affidavit of the Litigation Conducting Officer, the Office Assistant from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District explaining the delay.

2. We have gone through the affidavit, we find that the Deputy Commissioner had requested the Secretary of Revenue Department in his communication dated 06.05.2023 to issue appropriate orders to file a writ petition before this Court, challenging the order dated

HC-KAR

15.03.2023. However, the Government Order was passed only on 28.05.2025 appointing the Office Assistant of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner as Litigation Conducting Officer and was authorized to file a writ petition. Other than the said information, there is no other reason acceptable for the delay on the part of the State and its authorities to file the writ petition.

3. We also see from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal has considered all relevant facts, including the fact that the application was filed before the Tribunal in the year 2003 questioning the Order dated 02.02.2002 whereby, the applicant before the Tribunal was dismissed from service. The Tribunal noticed the fact that the applicant had raised an objection that when the enquiry was commenced, no information or documents were made available to the applicant to enable the applicant to give a proper reply, lead evidence and to cross-examine the official witnesses. In fact, the applicant

HC-KAR

had made a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District to give an opportunity to the applicant to enable the applicant to furnish the vouchers and other documents in support of his contention that he had not misused the funds of the Grama Panchayath. Nevertheless, the appellants herein proceeded to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer and proceeded to pass an order of dismissal against the applicant. The Tribunal having considered all these aspects of the matter, also noticed that the original applicant had died and his widow was brought on record and she continued the proceedings. The widow was already aged about 72 years and accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to partly allow the application while modifying the penalty of dismissal into compulsory retirement.

4. Having regard to the facts narrated herein above, we are of the considered opinion that if the State and its authorities were prudent, it would have not taken two and

HC-KAR

half years to file the writ petition. The explanation offered seeking condonation of delay is also not sufficient to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the writ petition only on the ground of delay and latches.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31