Delay in pursuing legal remedies can justify the dismissal of a petition, emphasizing the necessity for timely action to uphold legal rights.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. ARAVIND, J.

Heard Sri. Madhu Kiran Jagga, learned counsel for Sri. Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

2. The Karnataka Lokayukta has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 29.03.2021 passed in Application No.7307/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

3. Respondent No.2 was initially appointed as Chief Officer on 09.10.2010 and was thereafter posted as a Trainee to Udupi, Madikeri and other districts. Upon completion of the training period, he was posted at Nanjangud on 05.08.2011, where he served from 05.08.2011 to 17.07.2014. He was then transferred to Kanakapura Town Municipality, where he worked from 17.07.2014 to 29.11.2017, and was subsequently transferred to Bommasandra Town Municipality on 29.11.2017. In the meantime, one Sri. Mahadevaswamy S. and Sri. Manjunath S., residents of Nanjangud, filed a complaint before the petitioner-Lokayukta against the applicant and two other contractors, alleging misappropriation of government funds and execution of sub-standard work. Pursuant thereto, notice was issued to respondent No.2. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, the petitioner submitted a report under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’), recommending initiation of departmental enquiry. Respondent No.1, by order dated 13.12.2017, entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner. The said order of entrustment was called in question before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal quashed the entrustment order on the ground that the enquiry by the petitioner was contrary to Section 8(2)(c) of the Act.

4. Sri. Madhu Kiran Jagga, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the preliminary enquiry conducted against respondent No.2 with regard to misappropriation of funds was found to be substantiated, and accordingly, a report under Section 12 of the Act was submitted recommending initiation of departmental enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the State Government, by invoking Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the 1957 Rules’), entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta. It is therefore submitted that the enquiry before the petitioner– Institution is maintainable. The Tribunal, however, by incorrectly applying Section 8(2)(c) of the Act, has erroneously set aside the order of entrustment.

5. Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, supports the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

7. The complaint was filed on 19.05.2014, and the order of entrustment under Rule 14-A of the 1957 Rules came to be issued on 13.12.2017. Thereafter, respondent No.2 preferred an application before the Tribunal challenging the order of entrustment. By the impugned order dated 29.03.2021, the Tribunal set aside the order of entrustment. The petitioner has presented this writ petition on 04.02.2025, nearly four years thereafter. No explanation has been offered in the pleadings for the delay of almost four years. On a query put forth by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner was also unable to offer any explanation for condonation of delay. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a settled posi