1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

W.P. NO.3859/2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VIMS RUZARIO

S/O LATE LEO RUZARIO

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

RETIRED DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

RESIDING AT DIVINE GRACE

SOMESHWARA EXTENSION

U.B. ROAD, KADUR

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. YOGIESH D. NAIK ON BEHALF OF

SRI. B.O. ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

TO GOVERNMENT

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER

MYSURU DIVISION,

MYSURU - 570 001.

2

3.

SRI. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/

ENQUIRY OFFICER

HASSAN SUB-DIVISION

HASSAN - 573 201.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

THIS W.P.H.C. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE

ORDER

DATED

22.12.2020

IN

APPLICATION

NO.5640/2019

PASSED

BY

THE

KARNATAKA

STATE

ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL

(ANNEXURE-A)

AND

TO

ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by

consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the

parties it is taken up for final disposal.

2.

We have heard Sri.Yogesh D. Naik, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.B.O.Anil Kumar for

petitioner and Sri.Kiran Kumar, learned AGA appearing

for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the records.

3.

While petitioner was working as Revenue

Inspector

of

Lingadahalli

Hobli,

Tarikere

Taluk,

Chikamagalur District during the year 1994-95, had

3

mutated the khatha of land bearing Sy.No.27 measuring

44.25 acres, which was said to have been granted to

Sri.Dhanpal,

Sri.Manikya,

Sri.Subramani,

Sri.Krishnamurthy

@

Perumal,

Sri.Gangadhar,

Sri.ARmugam, Sri.Rajagopal and Sri.Bhimanaik, who

belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and

thereby had violated Section 4(2) of the Karnataka

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'SC/ST

Act'). Hence, after lapse of 17 years from the date of said

incident of change of khatha, Articles of Charges came to

be issued on 13.12.2012 (Annexure-A1). Reply to

Articles of Charges came to be submitted by petitioner on

05.01.2013

(Annexure-A2)

and

it

was

specifically

contended that there is inordinate delay in initiating

enquiry proceedings and petitioner had retired from

service on attaining the age of superannuation on

30.11.2014. After considering the reply submitted by

the petitioner, third respondent forwarded a report on

23.12.2015 (Annexure-A5) by opining thereunder that in

view of long delay in initiating enquiry, charges cannot

4

be enquired into. However, second respondent by

communication dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure-A6) did not

accept the report of Enquiry Officer regarding delay and

as such remanded the matter to the Enquiry Officer

namely, third respondent and directed the Enquiry

Officer to conduct enquiry afresh on merits without

referring to delay.

4.

Being aggrieved by the said action as well as

action in not concluding the enquiry within a reasonable

time, petitioner had approached the Karnataka State

Administrative

Tribunal

at

Bengaluru

(for

short

'Tribunal') by filing Application No.5640/2019. Tribunal

by impugned order opined that report submitted by third

respondent cannot be said to be an enquiry report

because he has not proceeded with the enquiry and he

himself has opined that there has been delay in

conducting enquiry and therefore, disciplinary authority

is correct in not accepting the report and was justified in

remitting or sending back the material to the Enquiry

Officer to conduct the enquiry as per the Karnataka Civil

5

Services (Classification, Control and Conduct) Rul