IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

WRIT PETITION NO. 108154 OF 2023 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.

R/BY ITS REGISTRAR LOKAYUKTA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. MOHAMMED NASRULLA S/O LATE ABDUL GHANI H., AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. SENIOR GEOLOGIST, (NOW RETIRED), DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD 580001.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (MINES)

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, NO. 106, VIKAS SOUDHA, R S H A A K R E IH S A H R DsRH LHCKDB i o E A A O i H g A I g cG N R nK U R A i aH teE N C I R t R ad H i S l A H o W T AHby n T O A y R : A S D FKA (BY S D R R I. . G AM .K B . E H D I K R A EG R O V U E D ED AR H , I , P B R E L N . G G O AL V U E R R U N M 56 EN 00 T 0 A 1 D . VO … C R A E T S E P F O O N R D R E 2 N ) T S THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11/08/2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.1009 OF 2018 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A); AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER FOR CONTINUATION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW & ETC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

The petitioner/Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 11.08.2020 passed in Application No.1009/2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi, For short ‘Tribunal’, whereunder 1^st respondent’s application questioning the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 31.05.2017 passed under Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, For short ‘CCA Rules’ was allowed by quashing the said entrustment order.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Srinivas B Naik for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for the respondent/State and perused the writ petition papers.

3. Respondent No.1, who was working as Senior Geologist, approached the Tribunal by filing the aforestated application questioning the order dated 31.05.2017 entrusting the enquiry to the petitioner/Lokayukta under Rule 14A of CCA Rules on the ground of non-application of mind by the respondent/State to the material on record including the report submitted under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, For short ‘Act, 1984’. The Tribunal accepting the contention of respondent No.1 set-aside the order of entrustment.

4. When the finding of the Tribunal that respondent/State has failed to apply its mind to the material on record including the report under Section 12(3) of Act, 1984, it is for the State to establish that it had applied its mind while passing the order of entrustment. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any writ petition against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, in that circumstance, the petitioner/Lokayukta would not be in a position to establish or defend the action of the State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Lokayukta contended that when the Tribunal has set-aside the order of entrustment on the ground of non-application of mind, it ought to have remitted the matter back to the State Government for consideration of the material on record and to pass fresh orders. The said contention cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Respondent No.1 was aged about 58 years as on the date of filing the application before the Tribunal. As on today, he is aged about 65 years and he was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Moreover, th