Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIG H COURT OF

WRIT PETITION NO. 31268 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO. 4730/2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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 S.G.PANDIT)

Petitioners – Lokayukta Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 04.03.2025 in Application No.4730/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the respondent No.1’s application challenging the order dated 03.08.2024 entrusting enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’) as well as articles of charge dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure-A9) are quashed.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.S.Mallikarjun Reddy for petitioners, learned counsel Sri.Satish.K., for Sri.M.Lokesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in quashing the order of entrustment dated 03.08.2024 as well as in quashing the articles of charge dated 31.08.2024 without noticing the fact that the observation note was forwarded to the petitioners as required under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’). Further, learned counsel would submit that respondent No.1’s application was premature and the Tribunal at the preliminary stage could not have quashed the articles of charge. Learned counsel would further submit that the officer who has forwarded the observation note is an officer of the petitioner – Lokayukta and in terms of Section 21 of the Act, the Upa-Lokayukta could delegate the functions to its officers and employees of the Lokayukta referred to in Section 15 of the Act. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy would support the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners – Lokayukta.

5. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on going through the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Further, we make it clear that only on the short ground that the observation note would not contain the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta, this writ petition is liable to be rejected.

6. Section 9(3) of 1984 Act reads as follows:

“9 Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.- (1)……. (2) ………… (3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he,-

(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint and in the case of an investigation initiated suomotu by him, the opinion recorded by him to initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, of section 7; to the public servant and the competent authority concerned;

(b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint; or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 7 as the case may be;

(c) may make such order as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit.”

A reading of the above provision makes it clear that whenever suomotu action is initiated by Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, the opinion formed by the Lok