SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440939

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT AND GEETHA K.B.
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA – Appellant
Versus
SRI HANMANTHAPPA BADAMI S/O. MALLAPPA BADAMI – Respondent
WP 108144/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO.108144 OF 2023 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

M.S. BUILDING,

BENGALURU,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

REGISTRAR LOKAYUKTA.

2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR,

ENQUIRIES-1,

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

CHANDRASHEKAR M.S. BUILDING,

LAXMAN

KATTIMANI

BENGALURU-560001.

Digitally signed by

C LA H X A M N A D N R A K S A H T E T K IM A A R NI

Location: HIGH COURT

OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. HANMANTHAPPA BADAMI

S/O. MALLAPPA BADAMI

AGE. 56 YEARS,

OCC. ASSISTANT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,

RAITHASAMPARKA KENDRA (RSK)

AMMINABHAVI, TALUK AND DISTRICT DHARWAD. R/AT SWAYAM PRAKASH HOUSE, NEAR K.V.G. BANK, GANDINAGAR, DHARWAD-580004.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SHESHADARI ROAD, BENGALURU-560012.

4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580074.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2-R4)

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 02/07/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.3515/2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER FOR CONTINUATION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAING, 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 petitioners – Officers of the Karnataka Lokayukta are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 02.07.2020 passed in Application No.3515/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the order dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure-A5) entrusting enquiry to Lokayukta, and the Articles of Charge dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure-A6) in respect of respondent No.1/applicant are quashed.

2. Heard Sri. Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 through Video Conference, and Sri. Sharad V.Magadum, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

Perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel, Sri. Srinivas B.Naik would contend that the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the order of entrustment of enquiry and the charge memo. It is submitted that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that respondent No.2-government has not applied its mind while passing the order under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the 1957 Rules’). It is his submission that, if the Tribunal were to come to the conclusion that there is no application of mind, the Tribunal ought to have remitted the matter back to the State Government for passing a fresh order on the material before it. Learned counsel while submitting that the charge against the respondent No.1 is serious in nature and as respondent No.1 is still in service, prays for remitting the matter to the Government for taking a fresh decision.

4. To the Court query with regard to delay of nearly three years in approaching this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Government failed to challenge the order of the Tribunal; the Lokayukta has come forward to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order of entrustment of enquiry and the charge memo; and it is in that circumstance, there is delay in approaching this Court.

Therefore, learned counsel would pray for allowing the petition.

5. Sri. Vij

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top