Karnataka High Court
Dadapeer Bhanuvalli S/O. Shabbir Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2025
-1-
WP No.100890 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.100890 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
DADAPEER BHANUVALLI
S/O. SHABBIR AHMED
AGE: 38 YEARS
OCC: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CUM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
SHIKARIPUR
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
R/O. C/O. R.H. BAHANUVALLI
TEACHER'S COLONY
BYADGI TALUK
YASHAVANT
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 106
NARAYANKAR ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGHCOURT
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK FOR
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
-2-
WP No.100890 of 2022
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION AND
GOVERNMENT LITIGATION
6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTER
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
4. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-12
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27-09-2021 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.1604/2019 VIDE “ANNEXURE-
A” AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW APPLICATION NO.1604 AS
PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 04.08.2025, COMING ON FOR
‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No.100890 of 2022
CAV ORDER
(PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner
who was the applicant before the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal1 calling in question the order dated
27.09.2021 passed in application No.1604/2019,
whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by
the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to
present petition are that the respondent No.2-Director of
Department of Prosecutions, State of Karnataka issued a
Notification on 16.05.2012 to fill up 197 Posts of Assistant
Public Prosecutors2 cum Government Pleaders3. The
petitioner having made an application pursuant to the said
Notification was selected and appointed to the post of APP
cum Assistant Government Pleader4 on 17.06.2014 and he
reported for duty on 30.06.2014. By order dated
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘KSAT’
2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘APP’
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘GP’
4
Hereinafter referred to as ‘AGP’
-4-
WP No.100890 of 2022
28.10.2016, the probationary period of the petitioner was
declared as satisfactory.
3. When things stood thus, pursuant to a private
complaint, the Lokayukta Police registered an FIR in Crime
No.59/2014 and the (alleged) irregularities committed in
the selection process was investigated, consequent to
which a charge sheet and additional charge sheet were
filed, whereunder, the petitioner was arrayed as the
accused No.49. The Lokayukta issued an observation note
on 28.06.2018 whereunder it was alleged that the
petitioner was involved in certain malpractices in collusion
with the Director of Prosecution with an intention to secure
an appointment and had involved himself in manipulating
answer scripts and that Departmental enquiry should be
initiated against him.
4. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation
to the observation note on 17.07.2018, consequent to
which the respondent No.3/Lokayukta submitted a report
under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,
-5-
WP No.100890 of 2022
19845, to the respondent No.1/Secretary, Home
Department, State of Karnataka seeking entrustment of
enquiry under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 19576.
Thereafter, respondent No.1 by order dated 27.11.2018
entrusted the enquiry to the respondent No.3/Lokayukta,
consequent to which, the respondent No.4/Additional
Registrar of Enquiries, Karnataka Lokayukta issued articles
of charge dated 29.12.2018.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of entrustment
dated 27.11.2018 and articles of charge dated
29.12.2018, the petitioner filed application No.1604/2019
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, noticing that by order
dated 21.12.2019 passed in application No.10075/2019
filed in respect of the same issue, the order of the Tribunal
was affirmed by this Court as also by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and R.P.No.100050/2020 and other connected
cases, was dismissed by this Court, the application of the
petitioner was also dismissed by the Tribunal by its order
5
Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’
6
Hereinafter referred to as ‘CCA Rules’
-6-
WP No.100890 of 2022
dated 27.09.2021. Being aggrieved by the order dated
27.09.2021, the present petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the charges alleged against the petitioner are in respect of
an act done prior to his appointment as an APP cum AGP
and hence the same cannot be the subject matter of the
investigation by the respondent No.3-Lokayukta. Reliance
is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a
coordinate bench judgment of this Court in the case of the
State of Karnataka Vs. M.Iliyas7. Hence, he seeks for
allowing the petition and granting of the reliefs sought for.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Lokayukta as well as learned AGA appearing for the State
contends that a similar question having been considered
by this Court in respect of the investigation conducted by
the Lokayukta relating to the same recruitment conducted
pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2012 in the case
of Smt.Ranjana Suresh Patil Vs State of Karnataka8
7
Order dated 16.06.2025 passed in W.A.No.100628/17 (S-RES) C/W
WP No.102913/2018(S-KAT)
8
ILR 2021 KAR 1980
-7-
WP No.100890 of 2022
and this Court having held that the Lokayukta is entitled to
investigate the matter, which order not having been
interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sarojini Veerappa Batakurki Vs. State of
Karnataka9 , the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
liable to be rejected.
8. The submissions made by the learned counsels
have been considered and the material on record has been
perused.
9. The relevant fact situation is undisputed, in as
much as the petitioner was appointed as APP cum AGP
pursuant to the recruitment Notification dated 16.05.2012
and that in respect of the appointments made by the said
recruitment notification, the Lokayukta has registered an
FIR in Crime No.59/2014 and after investigation has filed
the charge sheet, whereunder, the petitioner has been
arrayed as accused No.49.
9
Order dated 19.11.2024 , SLP(C) Nos.13918-13919/2021
-8-
WP No.100890 of 2022
10. In order to consider the contention put forth by
the petitioner, it is necessary to notice the relevant
provisions of the Act.
10.1 Section 2 (12) (d) reads as follows:
“2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,(12)”Public servant” means a person who is or was
at any time,
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d ) a Government Servant;
10.2 Section 7(2), 2(a) reads as follows:
7. Matters which may be investigated by the
Lokayukta and an Upalokayukta.
(1) xxx
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an
Upalokayukta may investigate any action which is
taken by or with the general or specific approval of,
any public servant not being the Chief Minister,
Minister, Member of the Legislature, secretary or
other public servant referred to in sub-section (1),
in any case where a complaint involving a grievance
or an allegation is made in respect of such action or
such action can be or could have been, in the
opinion of the Upalokayukta, [recorded in
-9-
WP No.100890 of 2022writing] [Inserted by Act 25 of 2010 w.e.f.
23.07.2010.] the subject of a grievance or an
allegation;
(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
sections (1) and (2), the Lokayukta or an
Upalokayukta may investigate any action taken by
or with the general or specific approval of a public
servant, if it is referred to him by the State
Government. [Inserted by Act 31 of 1986 w.e.f.
16.6.1986.]
10.3 Section 8 (1) (a) reads as follows:
8. Matters not subject to investigation. (1)
Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an
Upalokayukta shall not conduct any investigation
under this Act in the case of a complaint involving a
grievance in respect of any action,
(a)if such action relates to any matter specified
in the second Schedule;
10.3.1 Clause (d) of Second Schedule reads as
follows:
a. xxx
b. xxx
c. xxx
d. Action taken in respect of appointments,
removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or
– 10 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
other matters relating to conditions of service of
public servants but not including action relating
to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or
to any claims which arise on retirement, removal
or termination of service.
10.4 Section 9 reads as follows:
“9. Provisions relating to complaints
and investigations.-(1) Subject to the
provisions of this Act, any person may make
a complaint under this Act to the Lokayukta
or an Upalokayukta.
[Provided that in case of a grievance, if
the person aggrieved is dead or for any
reason, unable to act for himself, the
complaint may be made or if it is already
made, may be prosecuted by his legal
representatives or by any other person who is
authorized by him in writing in this behalf.](2) Every complaint shall be made in the
form of a statement supported by an affidavit
and in such forms and in such manner as
may be prescribed.
(3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upa-
lokayukta proposes, after making such
preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit, to
conduct any investigation under this Act, he.-
– 11 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint
and in the case of an investigation initiated
suo-motu 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.”
2. Amendment of Section 9.- In the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter
referred to as the principal Act), in section 9,
after sub-section (3), the following shall be
inserted, namely:-
"(3A) The preliminary inquiry contemplated by the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta before ordering an
investigation under sub-section (3), shall
ordinarily be completed within a period of
ninety days and for the reasons to be
recorded in writing within a further period of
– 12 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
ninety days from the date of receipt of
complaint.
(3B) In case the Lokayukta or the
Upalokayukta, after making such preliminary
inquiry, decides to conduct investigation as
referred to in sub-section (3), he shall get the
investigation conducted as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of six
months from the date of the order made
by him initiating investigation under sub-
section (3).
Provided that, the Lokayukta of the
Upalokayukta may extend the said period by
a further period not exceeding six months at
a time for the reasons to be recorded in
writing:
Provided further that, any delay in
completion of preliminary enquiry or
investigation as stated above shall not vitiate
the proceedings or cause prejudice, cannot
be taken as a defence.”
11. Rule 20 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General
Recruitment) Rules, 197710, reads as follows:
“20. Misconduct.- A candidate found guilty of
impersonation or of submitting fabricated10
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the General Recruitment Rules’
– 13 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
documents or documents which have been
tampered with or of making statements which are
incorrect or false or of suppressing material
information or of using or attempting to use unfair
means in an examination conducted for purposes
of recruitment or otherwise resorting to any other
irregular or improper means in connection with his
recruitment may in addition to rendering himself
liable to a criminal prosecution and to disciplinary
action, be debarred either permanently or for a
specific period.
(a) by the Commission or other recruiting or
examining authority from admission to any
examination or appearing for any interview for
selection of candidates; and
(b) by the Government from employment
under it.”
12. It is forthcoming from a combined reading of
Section 7(2) and Section 9 of the Act that an investigation
could be undertaken even suo-moto. It is further pertinent
to note that Rule 20 of the General Recruitment Rules
specifically refers to misconduct by a “candidate”.
13. At this juncture, it is pertinent to notice that,
being aggrieved by the action initiated, i.e., passing of an
– 14 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
order of entrustment and issuance of articles of charge
pursuant to the investigation undertaken under the
provisions of the Act in respect of the recruitment made
consequent to the notification dated 16.05.2012, the same
was challenged before the Tribunal which were rejected.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of the applications, the
said applicants had approached this Court. A division
bench of this Court considering the said writ petitions in
the case of Smt.Ranjana Suresh Patil8, framed the
following questions for consideration:
“12. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the
Learned Counsel for the parties, the questions that
arise for consideration of this Court are:
i) In the facts and circumstances of the case,
whether the Karnataka Upalokayukta had the
jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the
petitioners under the provisions of the Act,
1984?
ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case,
whether Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 could be
invoked against the petitioners?
– 15 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
iii) Whether Clause (d) to Second Schedule read
with Section 8(1)(a) of the Act, 1984 is
attracted in the present set of facts?
iv) Whether the principles of natural justice are
violated by the Upalokayukta and the State
Government in initiating proceedings/action
against the petitioners?
v) Whether the Article of Charges issued by the
Additional Registrar of Enquiries-12 suffers
from infirmities?”
14. While considering the said questions, after
noticing Sections 2, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act, as also Rule 20
of the General Recruitment Rules as well as various
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court
has held as follows:
“38. Having regard to the words “who is or was
at any time” as enumerated in Section 2(12) of the
Act, we have no hesitation in holding that the
petitioners would certainly come within the ambit
of public servant as defined in Clause(12) of
Section 2 of the Act since indisputably, on the date
of initiating proceedings against the petitioners
under the provisions of the Act, they were the
public servants. Hence, applying Rule 20 of the
Rules, 1977 which employs the phrase
– 16 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
“candidates” and public servant as defined under
Section 2(12) of the Act, it can be held that the
petitioners not holding the public office as on the
date of the alleged misconduct, would not
disentitle the Upalokayukta to initiate investigation
proceedings against them.
39. Section 9 of the Act, 1984 empowers the
Lokayukta/Upalokayukta to conduct any
investigation under the Act, after making such
preliminary enquiry as it deemed fit to initiate
investigation suo-moto under sub-Sections (1) or
(2), as the case may be, of Section 7. Such
exercise of suo-moto power by Upalokayukta after
forwarding the opinion recorded by him to initiate
such investigation, duly following the principles of
natural justice as required, cannot be held to be
unjustifiable.
Conclusion:
In the light of the judgments referred to
above and for the reasons aforesaid, the view of
the KSAT cannot be held to be unjustifiable. We do
not find any jurisdictional error in the order
impugned. No illegality or irregularity is found in
the action of the State Government in receiving
the report under Section 12(3) of the Act by the
Karnataka Lokayukta and thereafter referring the
matter to the Upa Lokayukta for conducting
– 17 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
displinery enquiry. Hence, the writ petitions fail
and accordingly stand dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. The judgment in the case of Smt.Ranjana
Suresh Patil8, was challenged before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarojini Veerappa
Batakurki9 and the same was dismissed vide order dated
19.11.2024. Thereafter, review petition No.100050/2020
was filed and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Mr. Vijaychandra Prabhu B. Vs. State of Karnataka
and others11, dismissed the said review petitions.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Karnataka and others Vs. Kempaiah12 relied upon
by the petitioners considering a fact situation wherein
upon receipt of a complaint, the Upa-Lokayukta conducted
a preliminary enquiry under Section 7(2) of the Act and
called for comments of the Government servant under
Section 9(3) which was challenged by the Government
servant in a writ petition before the High Court. An FIR
11
R.P.No.100050/2020 and other connected petitions, order dated 28.06.2021
12
(1998) 6 SCC 103
– 18 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
was also lodged under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which was
challenged by the Government servant in a criminal
petition before the High Court. The High Court disposed of
the writ petition and criminal petition together. In the writ
petition, the High Court upheld the contention of the
Government servant that the Upa-Lokayukta was not
entitled to investigate the allegation. In a challenge made
by the State, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed the
definition of the word “action” in Section 2(1) of the Act
and held that “the same encompasses administrative
action taken in any form by way of recommendation or
finding or in any other manner”. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court interpreted the words “in any other manner” as
defined under Section 2(1) of the Act. It was held that the
investigation under Section 7(2) was required to be limited
to the “action” as interpreted therein.
17. In the case of M. Iliyas7, a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court was considering a fact situation, wherein, a
candidate was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Rural
– 19 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
Development and Panchayathraj Department on
01.10.1995. That pursuant to a complaint dated
19.02.2014, the Lokayuktha submitted a report under
Section 12(3) of the Act, prima facie finding that, the
respondent did not have the requisite educational
qualification to be appointed as Junior Engineer at the time
of his appointment. Pursuant thereto, an order was passed
by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Koppal on
25.01.2016 demoting the respondent from the post of
Junior Engineer to Second Division Clerk. Challenging the
same, the candidate had preferred W.P.No.101343/2016,
calling in question the order of demotion, wherein, the
learned Single Judge of this Court, noticed that the
candidate had passed S.S.L.C., when he was appointed on
a contract basis to the post of Junior Engineer, also
obtained a Diploma Certificate from the Board of Technical
Examination on 28.01.2005. The learned Single Judge,
noticing that, although the candidate had only an S.S.L.C.
qualification, when he was appointed on a contract basis,
since the candidate had served as a Junior Engineer for
– 20 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
more than 24 years during which period he had obtained
Diploma Certificate, set aside the order of demotion. The
appeal filed by the State questioning the order of the
learned Single Judge was heard along with the writ
petition filed by the candidate challenging the dismissal of
his application before the Tribunal, wherein, the order of
entrustment and articles of charge were the subject
matter of challenge. A co-ordinate bench of this Court,
dismissed the writ appeal filed by the State and allowed
the writ petition filed by the candidate and set aside the
order of entrustment and articles of charge. In the case of
M.Iliyas7, the co-ordinate bench also referred to the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kempaiah12 and held as under:
“18. In fact, as rightly pointed out by
the learned counsel for the contesting
respondents, Annexure-A order dated
04.01.2006, by virtue of the Chief Executive
Officer regularized the services of the
contesting respondent and many other
persons, bears reference to the Government
Order dated 20.10.1994. However while
– 21 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
passing the order of demotion the Chief
Executive Officer has failed to look into the
Government Order. Therefore, as on the
date of regularization of the services, the
contesting respondent had requisite
educational qualification. In fact the
Principal Secretary of the R.D.P.R. had
communicated to the Chief Executive officer
on 20.10.2015 at annexure-G that the
question raised regarding the educational
qualification and regularization of services of
the contesting respondent was considered
and had clearly directed that the matter
stands closed. Nevertheless the Chief
Executive Officer passed the impugned
order on 25.01.2016 demoting the
contesting respondent from the post of
Junior Engineer to the post of Second
Division Clerk, which was uncalled for.
19. We are also of the considered
opinion that the entrustment of the enquiry
in this regard, not being an administrative
action on the part of the contesting
respondent, during his services, could not
have been entrusted to the Lokayuktha,
since it is beyond the scope and object of
the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, to go into
such grievances which arise during the
– 22 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
recruitment of an employee. Further, since
this Court has also opined that the
regularization of services of the contesting
respondent is in accordance with law, no
further enquiry at the hands of the State
Government or the Lokayuktha can
continue.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is clear and forthcoming from the
aforementioned that the co-ordinate bench of this Court in
the case of Smt.Ranjana Suresh Patil8 had noticed the
scope and extent of investigation that was permissible
under the Act with specific reference to the investigation
carried out in respect of the irregularities in the
recruitment Notification dated 16.05.2012 and having
specifically answered the contention raised that the
alleged irregularities pertains to a time prior to the
appointment of the candidate as a Government servant,
upon noticing Rule 20 of the General Recruitment Rules,
having held that such an investigation is permissible,
which has also been not interfered by the Hon’ble
– 23 –
WP No.100890 of 2022
Supreme Court, the same would also be applicable qua the
petitioner in the present writ petition.
19. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kempaiah12 as also co-ordinate bench
judgment in the case of M.Iliyas7 will not aid the case of
the petitioner since the said case arose from an entirely
different factual matrix and Rule 20 of the General
Recruitment Rules vis-à-vis Section 7 of the Act were not
considered in the said cases.
20. In view of the discussion made above, the writ
petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
HMB/YAN/PMP