IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.3534 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES - 5 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU- 560 001

2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTAR OF ENQUIRIES-2 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA D igitally signed M S BUILDING by AMBEDKAR VEEDHI MADHUSHREE BENGALURU - 560 001 H Location: High Court of …PETITIONERS Karnataka (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

2. SRI. YOGESH K., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE KANCHIRAYA, WORKING AS SURVEYOR, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT R/A DEVAMMA LAYOUT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.08.2019 BY THE HON’BLE KSAT IN APPLICATION NO.10668 OF 2016 (ANNEXURE-A) AND b) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by the Additional Registrar of Enquires-5 and another calling in question, the order dated 22.08.2019, in Application No.10668/2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’, for short), whereby, the application filed by the respondent No.2 herein came to be allowed setting aside the orders impugned therein.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. Brief factual matrix leading to filing of the present petition are as under:-

The applicant while working as a Surveyor in the Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka at the relevant point of time, the respondent No.2 on 12.02.2025 issued a notice enclosing the copy of report alleged to have been made by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub- Division, Hassan and sought reply to the said notice as to why action should not be taken against him. The applicant suitably replied, however, the respondent No.3 not satisfied with the reply issued articles of charge dated 07.09.2016 vide Annexure – A3 to the applicant and called upon the applicant to appear for the enquiry on 05.11.2016. As per the articles of charge, the incident was of the year 2004. However, the articles of charge was issued in the year 2016. The applicant aggrieved by the issuance of articles of charge approached the Tribunal, which was contested by the State as well as the petitioners herein.

4. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties was of the opinion that the petitioners while submitting report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘Act of 1984’, for short) as well as the Government prior to passing of entrustment order under Section 12(4) of Act of 1984 entrusting the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, (‘CCA Rules’, for short), also have not considered the materials before them. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 12 years in issuing articles and charge. Considering the same, the application was allowed setting aside the order impugned therein by order dated 22.08.2019. It is this order which is called in question nearly after 6 years from the date of order passed by the Tribunal.

5. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent No.1.

6. Though Sri.Joseph Anthony trie