IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 3796 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, VINUTHA B S REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, Location: High Court of DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND Karnataka INLAND WATER WORKS, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001.

2. SRI R. K. SHASHIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE KALAIAH, R/AT No.19/20, 8^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, J.P.NAGAR SECOND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560078.

3. SRI MAHADEVAIAH K. P., AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI PUTTAISH, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R/AT No.159, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST PHASE, BSK 3^RD STAGE, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560085.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 IN A.No-5962 AND

5963/2021 (ANNEXURE-A).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated

17.01.2023 passed in Application Nos.5962 & 5963/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, “the Tribunal”).

2.1 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were visited with a penalty order dated 18.10.2021 passed under Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, “KCSRs”). Aggrieved by the said order of penalty, respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred applications before the Tribunal challenging the same on various grounds.

2.2 The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside the penalty order dated 18.10.2021 as well as the enquiry report dated 18.05.2020. The Tribunal further directed payment of all consequential monetary benefits to the applicants.

2.3 Challenging the said order, the petitioner/Lokayukta has presented the present writ petition on 01.02.2025.

3. Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal, without properly considering the enquiry report based on the evidence recorded during the course of the enquiry, committed an error in setting aside the order of punishment. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with and setting aside the order of penalty. It is contended that the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded in the enquiry report or the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority.

4. Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1.

6. The order of the Tribunal is dated 17.01.2023. The present writ petition has been filed on 01.02.2025, after a delay of nearly two years. No explanation whatsoever is offered in the pleadings for the inordinate delay in preferring the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to offer any explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in MRINMOY MAITY v. CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, while considering the issue of delay in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has held that when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it must be examined whether such jurisdiction has been invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court further observed that the mere submission of memorials or representations would not revive a dead cause of