Inordinate delay in filing a writ petition is grounds for dismissal, reflecting a failure to exercise equitable jurisdiction, as such delay undermines timely adjudication.

ORDER :

K.V. ARAVIND, J.

Heard Sri Madhu Kiran Jagga, learned counsel for Joseph Anthony; learned counsel for the petitioners – Karnataka Lokayukta; and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1, 2 and 4.

2. The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, is before this Court assailing the order dated 11.09.2020 passed in Application No.315/2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

3. Respondent No.3 filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 04.09.2017, whereby the State, in exercise of its power under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957’), entrusted the investigation to the petitioner–Lokayukta, as also the order appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Articles of Charge.

4. One Sri Karadi Sannabadakappa, S/o Karadi Nanjappa, resident of Yellapura Village, Gourihalli Post, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District, filed a complaint against respondent No.3 alleging irregularities in passing orders relating to revenue entries. The petitioner submitted a report under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the 1984 Act’), recommending initiation of departmental enquiry against respondent No.3 and entrustment of the enquiry to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner nominated an Enquiry Officer on 23.09.2017, and the Articles of Charge were issued on 27.12.2017.

5. Respondent No.3, in the application before the Tribunal, contended that no misconduct had been committed and that the enquiry was without any basis. The Tribunal, under the impugned order dated 11.09.2020, held that the Lokayukta and the Government had initiated the enquiry without proper application of mind to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of entrustment, the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, and the Articles of Charge.

6. Sri Madhu Kiran Jagga, learned counsel for Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the preliminary enquiry culminating in a report under Section 12 (3) of the 1984 Act disclosed prima facie material against respondent No.3. Based on the said report, the State Government entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner–Institution, pursuant to which Articles of Charge were issued. It is contended that the interjection by the Tribunal at this stage is premature, as respondent No.3 would have full opportunity to put forth his defence in the course of the enquiry.

7. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, submits that the State Government, upon examining the report of the petitioner under Section 12 (3) of the 1984 Act, entrusted the investigation under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 after due application of mind.

8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, it is noticeable that the complaint was filed alleging irregularities in effecting change of names in the Katha certificate by respondent No.3 without notice to the complainant. Respondent No.3 submitted a detailed reply. However, the petitioner proceeded to recommend initiation of departmental enquiry, pursuant to which the State Government entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner. The Tribunal thereafter recorded a finding that neither the Lokayukta nor the Government had applied their mind to the issue with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and consequently set aside the enquiry proceedings.

9. Be that as it may, the order of the Tribunal is da