This writ petition is filed by the applicant in

No.20065/2019

on

the

file

of

the

Karnataka

State

Administrative

Tribunal,

Kalaburagi.

By

order

12.01.2022,

the

Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application and

aggrieved

by

the

same,

the

petitioner

has

approached this Court.

2.

The necessary facts for disposal of this

writ petition are as follows:

While the petitioner was working as Senior

Geologist at Karkala, he received a complaint on

02.06.2014 from the locals of Kaudoor village,

Karkala Taluka with the allegation that one Ivan

Miranda was illegally mining in the Government land

bearing Sy.No.362/1P1. Soon after receiving the

complaint, he visited the spot and found that Ivan

Miranda

was

not

carrying

on

any

quarrying

4

operation in the Government land, but he was

illegally mining in five cents of land in his patta

land

bearing

Sy.No.289/2

of

Kaudoor

village.

Noticing this illegal mining in the patta land, the

petitioner imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- on Ivan

Miranda and stopped the illegal quarrying. He paid

the fine amount. Thereafter, some others of the

same village made a complaint to the Karnataka

Lokayukta on 03.07.2014 not only against the

petitioner, but also six other officials stating that

Ivan

Miranda

was

illegally

quarrying

the

Government land. To this complaint, the petitioner

gave a reply to the Lokayukta on 14.08.2015

stating that no illegal quarrying was going on in the

Government

land

and

with

regard

to

illegal

quarrying operation by Ivan Miranda in his own land

in Sy.No.289/2, he had already taken action by

imposing penalty and stopped the quarry operation.

Not being satisfied with the reply given by the

5

petitioner, the Lokayukta sought a report from the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udupi. The said

police

officer

submitted

report

on

20.07.2017

stating that there was no illegal quarrying in the

Government land and it had been stopped two years

back itself. In spite of the report of DYSP being so,

the Lokayukta made a report under Section 12(3) of

the

Karnataka

Lokayukta

Act

on

24.07.2017

recommending action against the petitioner and

also other six officials. Acting on the report of the

Lokayukta, the first respondent i.e., Government

referred the matter for enquiry to the Lokayukta

under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services

(CCA) Rules. This order was passed on 19.10.2017.

The

Additional

Registrar

of

Lokayukta,

was

appointed as the enquiry officer. He framed articles

of charges on 02.05.2019 i.e., two years after the

reference under Section 14-A of the KCS (CCA)

Rules was made. While framing the charges, he left

6

out four officers and framed the charges only

against three officials including the petitioner in

regard to alleged mining activity of Ivan Miranda in

Sy.No.289/2. Therefore, the petitioner approached

the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by

filing Application No.20065/2019. In the said

application, he sought to quash the charges framed

against him and also the reference order under

Section 14A of KCS (CCA) Rules. Alternatively, he

sought a direction to the first respondent to open

the sealed cover and promote him to the post of

Deputy

Director

pending

enquiry

proceedings

initiated against him. But the Tribunal rejected his

application and this led the petitioner to approach

this Court by filing this writ petition.

3.

The findings of the Tribunal are that it was

necessary to hold a departmental enquiry in order

to ascertain whether the illegal mining activity was

7

in fact being carried on in the government land or

the

patta

land.

Although

according

to

the

petitioner, the mining by Ivan Miranda was in his

patta land and that the report of the police officer

was also to that effect, the villagers complained

that the petitioner allowed the mining activity to be

carried on in the government land. In this view, if

the government took a decision for entrusting the

matter for enquiry to Lokayukta, it cannot be said

to be unwarranted and illegal.

4.

In regard to