Karnataka Lokayukta v. State of Karnataka

NC:(2025:KHC:9543-DB( WP(No.(23499(of(2023( ( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(6 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2025( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(KRISHNA(S(DIXIT( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(RAMACHANDRA(D.(HUDDAR( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(23499(OF(2023((S-KSAT)( BETWEEN:(( ( , KARNATAKA,LOKAYUKTA, MS,BUILDING,, DR,B.R.,AMBEDKAR,ROAD, BANGALORE,-,560,001, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,REGISTRAR., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,JOSEPH,ANTHONY,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,

REP,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,TO,GOVERNMENT, FOREST,,ECOLOGY,AND,ENVIRONMENTAL,DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,,B.R.,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,,

BENGALURU,-,560001., ,

2., SRI,KRISHNA,ANNAIAH,GOWDA, Digitallytisigned S/O,AYYANNA,GOWDA,by0SHAKAMBARI AGED,42,YEARS,Location:0 HIGH COURT0OF RANGE,FOREST,OFFICER, KARNATAKA NAGARA,RANGE,,SAGAR,DIVISION, SHIMOGA,DISTRICT, R/O,FOREST,OFFICERS,QUARTER, SAGAR,TALUK,,SHIMOGA,DISTRICT, ,

3., PRINCIPAL,CHIEF,CONSERVATOR,OF,FOREST, THARANYA,BHAVANA,,18 ,CROSS,,MALLESHWARAM,,, BANGALORE,-,560043, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,VIKAS,ROJIPURA,,AGA,FOR,R1,&,R3;, ,,,,,,SRI.,SATISH,K.,,ADV.,FOR,SRI.,PREM,KUMAR,P.,,ADV.,, ,,,,,,FOR,C/R2),

THIS WRIT 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 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED DECEMBER 07, 2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN APPLICATION No. 941/2017 (ANNEXURE-A).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Karnataka Lokayuktha is knocking at the doors of writ Court for assailing the State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 07.12.2020, whereby private respondent's Application No.941/2017 having been favoured, he has been relieved of the disciplinary proceedings. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

"The application is allowed and the impugned order bearing No. Complaint / Upalok / BD / 3010 / 2013 / SaNiKaSa-1 dated

10.08.216 as per (Annexure-A17) passed by the 3rd respondent and the impugned order bearing No.AaPaJi 137 AaEiVi 2016 dated

05.11.2016 (Annexure-A18) passed by the 1st respondent, are hereby set-aside."

¶2Learned panel counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the KSAT grossly erred in accepting the letter of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest ('PCCF' for brevity), Government of Karnataka, without ascertaining its authenticity and therefore there is error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this Court.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent opposes the petitioner submitting that the PCCF, being the Chief Executive of the Department of Forest, himself having vouched the work of his subordinate official as being not vulnerable for any enquiry, his version cannot be doubted. We agree with this. It is not the case of Lokayuktha that, what the PCCF has said in the letter in question, is not correct. The Tribunal having acted upon the said letter, has granted relief to the Civil Servant and that accords with reason & justice.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the Civil Servant would submit that Lokayuktha has brooked enormous

delay in laying a challenge to the order of the Tribunal and that the explanation offered for that is not plausible. This aspect need not be gone into, since we are deciding the matter on merits itself.

In the above circumstances, petition being unworthy of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is.

Costs made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

RD