[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr S Nagendra Murthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2026
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9373
WP No. 26132 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 26132 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR S NAGENDRA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE M SHIVANANJAPPA
WORKING AS ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HEAD QUARTERS, KRIDL
BANGALORE-560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S R DODDAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, BANGALORE-560009
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY.
Digitally signed by
MALATHI 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHALUVA IYENGAR
Location: HIGH KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
COURTOF AND DEVELOPMENT LTD
KARNATAKA
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1:
SRI T NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2:
SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9373
WP No. 26132 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY
ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, THE IMPUGNED
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10/01/2022 BEARING NO.
KRIDL/COMPLATE/UPALOK/BD-689/2017/DRE-5/2011-22(EV),
VIDE ANNEXURE-D, PASSED BY THE R2 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"1) Quash by issuance of Writ in the nature of
a Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order,
the impugned Government Order dated 10/01/2022
bearing No. KRIDL/Complate/Upalok/BD-689/2017/
DRE-5/2011-22(EV), vide Annexure-D, passed by
the 2nd Respondent in so far as petitioner is
concerned.
2) Quash by issuance of Writ in the nature of
certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, the
impugned Articles of Charge bearing No. UPLOK-
2/DE-25/2022/ARE-9, passed by the 3rd
Respondent, dated 04/03/2022 vide Annexure-E in
so far as petitioner is concerned.
NC: 2026:KHC:9373
HC-KAR
3) Consequently also quash the Order dated
09/02/2022 bearing NO. KRIDL/Complate/Upalok/
BD-689/2017/DRE-5/2021-22(EV) passed by the
2nd Respondent vide Annexure-F in so far as
petitioner is concerned.
4) Direct by issuance of Writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, the 2nd
Respondent to refund an amount of Rs.3,44,936/-
(Three Lakhs Fourty Four Thousand Nine Hundred
and Thirty Six Only) along with interest at the rate
of 24% per annum, from the date of payment
which has been paid by the Petitioner to the 2nd
Respondent Department, on the basis of undue
influence exerted on the Petitioner, vide Annexure-J
in so far as petitioner is concerned.
5) Direct by issuance of Writ in the nature of
mandamus the terminal benefits of the Petitioner
pending with the 2nd Respondent in lieu of the
pending enquiry vide the issuance of Articles of
Charges."
2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant
Executive Engineer (Tech.) at Ramanagara Sub-Division,
Ramanagara District in the second respondent -
Department. While he was in service, a departmental
NC: 2026:KHC:9373
HC-KAR
enquiry was initiated against him. Thereafter, he retired
from service on 31.05.2022 as an Executive Engineer.
Aggrieved by the initiation of the said departmental
enquiry, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that, prior to the initiation of the departmental
enquiry, the second respondent had already recovered a
sum of Rs.3,44,936/- from the petitioner on account of the
loss caused to them. Therefore, the petitioner does not
press prayer Nos.3 and 4, which relate to the refund of the
said amount.
4. He further contends that even in the departmental
enquiry, recovery of the loss caused to respondent No. 2
can be made only if the petitioner is held guilty and the
charges are proved. Since the amount has already been
recovered and the petitioner is not seeking a refund of the
same, the departmental enquiry initiated by the second
respondent may be closed.
NC: 2026:KHC:9373
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1
and 2 submits that if the petitioner is not pressing prayer
Nos. 3 and 4, then, without affecting the departmental
enquiry initiated against the other employees, prayer Nos.
1 and 2, which seeks quashing of the departmental
enquiry only in respect of the petitioner, may be allowed.
6. In view of the above, the following order:
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The prayer Nos. 1 and 2 for quashing
Annexure-D dated 10.01.2022 passed by the
second respondent and Annexure-E dated
04.03.2022 passed by the third respondent
are granted, thereby quashing Annexures D
and E, in so far as petitioner is concerned.
(iii) It is made clear that the petitioner is not
entitled for refund of the amount recovered
by the respondent No.2.
(iv) It is also made clear that quashing of the
departmental enquiry in respect of the
NC: 2026:KHC:9373
HC-KAR
petitioner will not come in the way of
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed with the
enquiry in respect of other employees.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44
