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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.