Delay and laches significantly affect the exercise of discretionary remedies in writ petitions, reinforcing the principle that courts should not entertain stale claims.

ORAL ORDER

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

The petitioners, the Registrar and Additional Registrar of the Karnataka Lokayukta are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2019 in Application No.6911/2017, whereunder fourth respondent's application was allowed by quashing the order of entrustment as well as Articles of Charge dated 29.07.2016 (Annexure-A6).

2. Heard C. Rajesh, learned counsel for Sri Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Respondent No.4 approached the Tribunal questioning the Entrustment of Enquiry order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure-A5) referring the enquiry against him under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and consequent Articles of Charge dated 29.07.2016. Respondent No.4 contended before the Tribunal that the Articles of Charge is barred under Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) and the Tribunal accepting the said contention, set aside the order of entrustment as well as Articles of Charge against which, the Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Sri C. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.4 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015, whereas the Articles of Charge is issued in respect of an incident which had taken place in the year 2013. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have quashed the Articles of Charge only on the ground that the Articles of Charge are contrary to Rule 214(2)(b)(ii) of KCSRs. Further, he would submit that there are a number of Delinquent Government Officers (DGOs) and respondent No.4 is one of such DGO's. Therefore, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

5. When the Court queried with regard to delay of more than 6 years in preferring the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 2.18 of the writ petition and submits that as the Government failed to file writ petition, the Lokayukta Authorities took action to file writ petition. Hence, he prays for condoning the delay and to entertain the writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 6.1 At the first instance, the petition is liable to be rejected only on the ground of delay and latches itself. The order of the Tribunal is dated 25.06.2019 and the present writ petition is filed before this Court on 01.04.2025. Respondent No.4, as on the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal was aged 62 years and as on this date, he is nearly more than 68 years.

7. Be that as it may. The explanation of the Lokayukta Authorities at paragraph 2.18 for delay in preferring the writ petition reads as follows;

"2.18 That the Petitioner's Institution awaiting that Respondent No.1 to 3 may challenge the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, in A.No. 6911/2017 passed by the Hon'ble KSAT. However, while following upon the cases it has come to the knowledge of the Petitioner and the Counsel that the Respondent No.1 to 3 have not challenged the same. Hence, there is a delay in filing the above petition. The delay is caused due to the aforesaid bona fide reason and is not deliberate."

8. The above av