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) 441496

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT AND GEETHA K.B.
THE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 – Appellant
Versus
SRI SURESH S/O VEERAPPA KUMAR – Respondent
WP 102257/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 16TH 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.102257 OF 2025 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE UPALOKAYUKTA-1

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE ADDL. REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES 16

ADDL. CHARGE OF ADDL. REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRES-15

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. SURESH S/O VEERAPPA KUMBAR

AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

OF HORTICULTURE, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,

SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.

CHANDRASHEKAR

L K A A X T M TI A M N ANI R/O PLOT NO.74, 62B, MUDENAGUDI LAYOUT,

Digitally signed by

BACK SIDE OF DY.S.P OFFICE, SAMBAPUR ROAD,

CHANDRASHEKAR

L L A oc X a M ti A on N : K H A IG T H TI M CO A U N R I T GADAG, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.

OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE,

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

3. THE DIRECTOR,

DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE,

LALBAGH, BENGALURU-560004.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. SAHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10871/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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 petitioners-Lokayukta Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 20.12.2024 in Application No.10871/2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi, For short, ‘Tribunal’, whereunder, the following order is passed:

(i) The application is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned order bearing No.UPLOK-

1/DE-1162/2017/ARE-16 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A3 and impugned recommendation bearing No.UPLOK- 1/DE/1162/2017/ARE-16 dated 26.6.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure- A4) and the impugned order bearing No.ThoE/208/ThoSePa/2016 (part-1), dated 17.4.2021 passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure-A8) are quashed.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to consider the reply submitted by the applicant to the 2nd show-cause notice and after recording specific findings to pass appropriate orders.

(iv) The time for compliance is two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Patil for respondent No.1 as well as learned AGA Sri. Sharad V Magadum for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The petitioners were the respondents No.2 and 3 and respondent No.1 was the applicant before the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale for the petitioners would submit that the finding of the Tribunal at paragraph- 24 to the effect that the reply of the applicant to 2nd show cause notice is not considered before passing the impugned order. It is submitted that if that is so, the Tribunal ought to have remitted the matter back to the respondent No.2/government to consider the reply and pass fresh orders. However, he submits that on the observation that the reply submitted by the applicant to the 2nd show-cause notice is not considered, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the enquiry report at Annexure-A3 dated 24.06.2020 and recommendation of Upa-Lokayukta dated 26.6.2020 at Annexure-A4. Thus, learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale would pray for modifying the order of the Tribunal, so as to co

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