Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2026:KHC:19579

WP No. 16387 of 2023

BETWEEN:

SRI.C.K. RAVI KUMAR

S/O LATE K KRISHNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

NOW TECHNICAL DIRECTOR (IN CHARGE)

NO.3 DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE,

KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

NO.55, RISHALDAR ROAD,

SHESHADRIPURAM

BANGALORE – 560 020.

R/AT NO.35, 1ST N BLOCK

1ST ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR

BANGALORE - 560 010.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

VIKASA SOUDHA

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD

REPRESENTED BY ITS THE COMMISSIONER,

NO.55, RESILDAR STREET,

SHESHADRIPURAM,

BENGALURU-560 020.

3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,

M S BUILDING,

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BANGALORE – 560 001.

4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-4

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,

M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BANGALORE-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R-1

SRI. SHARAN.N.MAJAGE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2

SRI. VENKATESH.S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raghavendra G Gayatri
For the Respondents: G. Ramesh Naik, Sharan.N.Majage, Venkatesh.S. Arabatti

The State Government lacks the legal authority to entrust disciplinary enquiries to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules against employees of statutory bodies, as such employees are not 'Government servants' under the said Rules, and the competent disciplinary authority remains the Board itself.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings - Statutory bodies - Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Rule 14-A - Entrustment of enquiry to Lokayukta - Petitioner, an employee of Karnataka Slum Development Board, challenged order of State Government entrusting disciplinary enquiry to Lokayukta - Court held that Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules is applicable only to Government servants and not to employees of statutory boards/corporations - State Government is not the competent authority to initiate or entrust disciplinary proceedings to Lokayukta against such employees - Impugned orders set aside (Paras 4, 8, 11).

(B) Delay and Laches - Continuous cause of action - Disciplinary proceedings remaining pending - Petitioner challenged articles of charge which were issued years prior - Court held that as long as enquiry is pending and retirement benefits are affected, there is a continuous cause of action and the petition is not barred by delay or laches (Para 12).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an engineer with the Karnataka Slum Development Board, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State Government by entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. The petitioner argued that the State lacked jurisdiction as the Board is the competent disciplinary authority.

Findings of Court:
The Court followed settled law, noting that Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules does not apply to employees of statutory bodies like the Board. Consequently, the State's order of entrustment and the resulting articles of charge were found to be without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the State Government has the jurisdiction to entrust a disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules against an employee of a statutory board, and whether the petition is barred by delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: The CCA Rules, specifically Rule 14-A, apply exclusively to 'Government servants'. Employees of statutory boards are 'public servants' governed by their own service rules, and the State Government cannot bypass the competent authority (the Board) to entrust disciplinary matters to the Lokayukta.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed.

WRIT PETITION NO. 16387 OF 2023 (S-RES)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R1 PERTAINING TO THE ORDER IN REFERENCE NO.VAE 11 KOMAMSE 2017 DTD 06.03.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R1, AND THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE IN REFERENCE NO.UPALIK1/D/83/2019/ARE-4 DTD 10.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANENXURE-B.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“(a) Call for records from the Respondents No.1 pertaining to the order in reference No. VaE 11 KoMamSe 2017 dated: 06.03.2019 vide ANNEXURE-A passed by the 1st Respondent, and the Articles of Charge in reference No. UpaLok-1/DE/3/2019/ARE-4 dated: 10.04.2019 issued by the Respondent No.4 vide Annexure-B.

(b) Issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders in reference No. VaE 11 KoMamSe 2017 dated: 06.03.2019 vide ANNEXURE-A passed by the 1st Respondent, and the Articles of Charge in reference No.UpaLok 1/DE/83/2019/ARE-4 dated: 10.04.2019 issued by the Respondent No.4 vide Annexure-B as illegal, arbitrary and further drop the further proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

(C) Consequently consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Technical Director/Superintending Engineer with all consequential benefits.

(d) Grant such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the 2nd respondent – Karnataka Slum Development Board (KSDB) in the year 1992 and thereafter, he was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1999 and he was promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 2011. During the year 2013, pursuant to the complaint given against the petitioner, an Inspection committee after conducting inspection, submitted a report in the year 2015. Thereafter, the Investigating officer of the Technical Wing of the Lokayuktha conducted one more inspection, on the basis of which, on 14.03.2017, the Upalokayuktha submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act,1984, against six officers including the petitioner. Thereafter, 1st respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent – KSDB seeking information about the report submitted by the Upalokayuktha, pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent gave information as sought for by the 1st respondent that there was no fault with the KSDB employees, in addition to which, the 2nd respondent – KSDB issued a communication to the petitioner and others seeking their remarks on the report submitted by the Upalokayuktha vide Annexure-R dated 06.06.2018. On 06.09.2018, the 1st respondent-State sought reports of spot inspection from the Lokayuktha and the 2nd respondent. When the things stood thus, the 1st respondent-State vide Annexure-A dated 06.03.2019, invoked Rule 14A of the CCA Rules 1957 and entrusted the matter to the 3rd respondent – Lokayuktha for enquiry, pursuant to which, the Articles of Charges vide Annexure B dated 10.04.2019 was issued by respondents 3 and 4, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for 1st respondent – State as well as learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and perused the material on record.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the 2nd respondent – KSDB and was a public servant but was not a Government servant, to whom Rule 14A of the CCA Rules was not applicable and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24158

Cases Referred (1)