Karnataka High Court
Sri B Sharanappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.54596 OF 2017(S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI B SHARANAPPA
S/O C BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER,
PANCHAYATHRAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION,
MOLAKALMURU,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
R/AT HARSHA NILAYA,
BASAVESHWARA NILAYA,
NH-13, CHITRADURGA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-570 012
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RERPESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ
DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
CHITRADURGA,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-570 012
2
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
CHITRADURGA,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-570 012
4. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
5. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-7
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S BUILDING,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: A.C. BALARAJ, AGA FOR R1;
SRI: V.S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
SRI: N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
RELATING TO THE ORDER DATED: 12.07.2017 PASSED BY
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, IN
APPLICATION NO.2420/2017 VIDE ANNX-A AND AFTER
PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION
AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the order dated
12.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal in Application No.2420/2017 whereby the
application filed by the applicant / petitioner has been
rejected in limine.
2(i) The petitioner claims that he was initially
appointed on daily wage basis and subsequently his
services were regularized on 06.07.1989. While working
as Junior Engineer in Medehally Grama Panchayath on
25.04.2007, a complaint was filed by one Sri.M.Ravi
Shankar alleging irregularities in execution of the works
under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme 2007, on the basis of which,
respondent No.4 investigated the matter entrusting it to
the Chief Engineer of Technical Department of Lokayukta
and report was submitted holding that there was an excess
payment of Rs.5,18,854/-. It is submitted that a
complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police,
Lokayukta, Chitradurga relating to the alleged irregularities
stated to have been committed by the petitioner while
working as Junior Engineer at Medehally Grama
Panchayath on 25.04.2007. The third respondent passed a
resolution on the basis of the opinion expressed by the
complainant and proceeded to recover a sum of
Rs.2,59,427/- from the salary of the petitioner.
Subsequently, the entire amount of Rs.2,59,427/- was
recovered from the salary of the petitioner.
2(ii) Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by filing an
application No.8669/2015. The said application came to
be disposed of on 08.03.2019 holding that the Disciplinary
Authority would be entitled to recover a sum of
Rs.2,59,427/- from the applicant / petitioner in terms of
Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules after
holding a detailed departmental enquiry. Till such time,
the amount of Rs.2,59,427/- already recovered from the
applicant / petitioner will have to be returned without any
interest. Further it was observed that holding of
departmental enquiry is subject to the final outcome of the
Writ Petition No.54596/2017 i.e., the present writ petition.
2(iii) The said order dated 08.03.2019 passed in
Application No.8669/2015 has been challenged by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein namely, Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Chitradurga and the Executive
Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Chitradurga, in
W.P.No.25220/2019 which came to be disposed of on
02.01.2020, quashing the order dated 08.03.2019 passed
in Application No.8669/2015. However, it has been
observed that any decision that would be taken in
W.P.No.54596/2017 i.e., the present writ petition is with
reference to the findings rendered in Application
No.2420/2017 which was filed specifically challenging the
right of Karnataka Lokayukta conducting investigation
under section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act will
be dealt with separately.
2(iv) In Application No.2420/2017, the petitioner
has challenged the correctness and validity of entrustment
of the enquiry under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957
("Rules" for short) to the fourth respondent and article of
charges issued by the fifth respondent on the ground that
the investigation conducted by the fourth respondent is hit
by section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 in
view of specific bar for respondent No.4 to investigate the
matter, inter alia challenging the procedures while
exercising the power under section 12(4) of the Act. The
Tribunal has clubbed the said application along with
identical applications and has passed a common judgment
dated 12.07.2017 rejecting the application, negating the
contentions urged by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner referring to the
order of the Division Bench of this Court at Kalaburagi
Bench in the case of Sri SHRISHALI MUCHANDI vs. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA in W.P.No.200745/2018 disposed of
on 21.09.2020, submitted that the challenge made to the
competency of Lokayukta to investigate into the complaint
under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005
("NREG Act" for short) and Scheme is held to be valid. In
view of the said decision, the challenge made to the
jurisdiction of the Lokayukta herein does not survive for
consideration. Accordingly, keeping open the rights and
contentions of the petitioner relating to the other issues,
the writ petition requires to be disposed of.
would submit that the issue involved herein is squarely
covered by the Co-ordinate Bench Decision of this Court
referred to supra, and therefore, the writ petition deserves
to be dismissed negating the contentions urged by the
petitioner.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for
parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in
dispute that the issue involved herein inasmuch as the
jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to investigate the complaints
filed with respect to National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act, 2005 and Scheme is no more res integra. It has been
categorically held by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.200745/2018, supra, that the Lokayukta has the
competency to investigate into the complaints filed under
the NREG Act. We have no reasons to differ from the
same and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss.
