1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

WRIT PETITION NO.17227 OF 2018 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1.

THE REGISTRAR

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

M.S.BUILDINGS,

DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU-560 001

2.

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR

OF ENQUIRIES (ENQUIRY-10)

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

M.S. BUILDINGS,

DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU-560001.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. A.D. VIJAYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI. MALLIKARJUNA GOWDA

S/O LATE SHIVARUDRA GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,

RAITA SAMPARKA KENDRA,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

KAMPLI POST, HOSPET TALUK,

2

BELLARY DISTRICT,

R/AT M.P PRAKASH NAGAR,

7^TH WARD, 5^TH MAIN,

NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,

HOSPET-584134,

BELLARY DISTRICT.

2.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

M.S.BUILDING, SACHIVALAYA-II.

BENGALURU-560 001

3.

THE COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

SHESHADRI ROAD,

BENGALURU-560001.

& RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3;

SRI. VIJAY KUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON9BLE KARNATAKA

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPLICATION

NO.4855 OF 2015 DATED 06.07.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND

ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

DAY,

SATISH

CHANDRA

SHARMA.

J.,

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated

before this Court that an identical writ petition i.e., W.P.

No.23105/2018 has already been decided by this Court on

3

31.05.2021. The operative paragraphs of the aforesaid

judgment read as under:

<4. Learned counsel for the Lokayuktha

establishment has vehemently argued before the

Court that the Tribunal has allowed the application

preferred by Respondent No.1 also on the ground

of delay and latches and the Respondent No.1 was

also responsible in the matter of delay and latches.

He has stated before this Court that a complaint

was filed before the Lokayuktha establishment on

02.11.2004 and he has stated that after receiving a

complaint, the matter was looked into by the

Investigating Officer and comments were called by

the Enquiry Officer on 15.12.2004. The comments

offered by Respondent No.1 were not accepted by

the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer

proceeded ahead to enquire into the complaint.

The respondent was again informed to furnish

details by letter dated 03.03.2006, but the

respondent failed to furnish details and he was

reminded thrice on 30.10.2006, 20.11.2007 and

24.01.2008. However, he did not submit any

reply. It has been further stated that the Joint

Director of Agriculture, Bellary was also called over

phone to furnish certain information and the Joint

Director has submitted information on 29.02.2008.

However, it was found that the information is not

4

useful from the point of investigation of the

complaint. Thereafter, the letters were issued to

the Chief Executive Officer on 04.03.2008 to

submit a detailed report. A reminder was sent on

25.08.2008 and after that the Government directed

the Chief Executive Officer to furnish a report to

the Lokayuktha establishment. In spite of the

aforesaid, the Chief Executive Officer did not

furnish details and he was summoned by the

Lokayuktha on 28.04.2009. Thereafter, because of

parliamentary elections, the matter got delayed

and finally, a report was submitted on 31.08.2013.

He has stated that the delay cannot be attributed

to the Lokayuktha establishment and there is no

illegality committed in the matter either by the

State Govt. or by the Lokayuktha establishment

and chargesheet cannot be quashed only o