The Supreme Court of India has left open an important legal question—whether a Lokayukta can legally challenge an Administrative Tribunal’s decision that cancels the penalty imposed on a government employee.

This case came before a bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta. The Lokayukta had appealed against a Karnataka High Court order, which had dismissed its challenge to a decision by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had earlier quashed the order of compulsory retirement issued as punishment to a government official accused of corruption.

Read also: Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response on Suggestions to Reform Sex Education and Real-Time

The bench observed that the disciplinary authority—the original body responsible for imposing the penalty—had not contested the Tribunal's decision to cancel the retirement order. Instead, it was the Lokayukta, a quasi-judicial authority, that chose to challenge the decision because it had been made a party in the original proceedings.

Quoting Justice Datta:

“You were not even required to be made a party, they have made you a party, that is why you are invoking [...] cases...you are saying Tribunal has committed error...has the disciplinary authority come? Been aggrieved? Who are You!? Once there is an acquittal by the criminal court in a Prevention of Corruption Act matter, when the demand and acceptance is not proved, how do you prove it in a disciplinary proceeding!?”

Read also: Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Court as "Lower Court" is Against the Constitution

The bench questioned the basis of the Lokayukta’s challenge, especially since the disciplinary authority had not pursued the case. The Court also noted the acquittal of the respondent in the related criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting that if the charges were not proved in a criminal court, it becomes difficult to justify disciplinary action.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Lokayukta’s petition, citing a delay of 277 days in filing the case. However, the Court did not decide on the larger legal question of whether the Lokayukta has the authority to challenge such orders from an Administrative Tribunal.

The matter stands closed for now, but the legal issue remains open for future interpretation.

Case Title: THE HONBLE LOKAYUKTA AND ORS. Versus MOHAN DODDAMANI AND ORS., Diary No. 17688-2025