Karnataka Lokayuktha vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2510 Kant

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                         PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                           AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

         WRIT PETITION NO.35267 OF 2018 (S-KAT)
                          C/W
         WRIT PETITION NO.34009 OF 2018 (S-KAT)

IN W.P. NO.35267/2018:

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S.BUILDINGS
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001.
                                     ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
        (POLICE SERVICES) HOME DEPARTMENT
        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
        BANGALORE-560001.

2.      SRI. N.M. DHARMAPPA
        SON OF SRI. N.T.MALLAPPA
        AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
        DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                             2




       CITY DIVISION,
       KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
       BANGALORE-560001.
                                ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. SWAMINI GANESHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDEEP
PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.9360/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.


IN W.P. NO.34009/2018:

BETWEEN:

THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
                                    ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       HOME DEPARTMENT,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BANGALORE-560001.

2.     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
       GENERAL OF POLICE,
       NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560002.
                            3




3.   SRI SANGAPPA HULLUR
     SON OF SRI SIDDAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
     POLICE INSPECTOR,
     JEWARGI, JEWARGI TALUK,
     KALABURGI DISTRICT-585102.
     RESIDING AT
     JEWARGI, JEWARGI TALUK,
     KALABURGI DISTRICT-585102.
                                ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 28.11.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION
NO.8263/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

     THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.05.2021 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, NATARAJ
RANGASWAMY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

W.P.No.34009/2018 is filed challenging the

correctness of the Order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in

Application No.8263/2015, whereby the Tribunal held that

the State Government cannot entrust an enquiry against

police officers to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the

Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the KCS (CC&A) Rules,

1957'), but could entrust an enquiry to the Lokayukta

under Rules 6 and 8 of the Karnataka State Police

(Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the KSP

(DP) Rules, 1965') by empowering it as "Specially

Empowered Authority". It quashed the order of

entrustment of enquiry against the applicant - respondent

No.3 herein and the consequent Articles of Charge on the

ground that the respondent No.3 herein was not given an

opportunity to present his case and granted liberty to

conduct further investigation and take disciplinary action in

accordance with law.

2. The facts essential to make the narration

complete are that the Government passed an Order dated

12.03.2007 under Section 7(2-A) of the Karnataka

Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act of 1984') for

investigation into the action of various public servants in

the matter relating to mining. The Lokayukta submitted its

report on 18.12.2008. It submitted another report on

27.07.2011. Later the Government constituted a High

Level Committee which comprised of the Additional Chief

Secretary as its Chairman and the mandate given to this

Committee was to suggest steps to implement the

recommendations made in the report of the Lokayukta

dated 27.07.2011. On 09.09.2011, the respondent No.2

appointed a Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a

preliminary enquiry regarding the bribe allegedly paid to

the police officers whose names appeared in Table I of

Chapter 28 of the report dated 27.07.2011. The Deputy

Commissioner of Police submitted his report on 26.11.2011

stating that there was no evidence regarding payment of

bribe and that the principles of natural justice were not

complied with while reporting that the police officers had

received bribe. Therefore, he opined that there was no

prima facie case to initiate proceedings under Rule 6 of the

KSP (DP) Rules, 1965. Notwithstanding the above, the

respondent No.2 recommended to the respondent No.1 to

entrust the enquiry to the petitioner to take disciplinary

action, if sufficient corroborating evidence was available.

On 19.03.2012, the respondent No.1 entrusted the issue

to the Department of Personnel and Administrative

Reforms, which dropped the proceedings, after the

concerned officers submitted their reply. However, on

03.08.2012, the respondent No.1, after obtaining opinion

from the Department of Law entrusted the enquiry against

the respondent No.3 and others to Karnataka

Upalokayukta under Rules 6 and 8 of the KSP (DP) Rules,

1965 and Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957. Based

on the details submitted by the respondent No.2 about

some additional police officers to be proceeded against in

the joint enquiry, the respondent No.1 passed an Order

dated 27.07.2013 entrusting the enquiry to the

Upalokayukta under Rules 6 and 8 of the KSP (DP) Rules,

1965 and Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957. By

order dated 14.03.2014, Upalokayukta-2 nominated

Additional Registrar of Enquiries-4 as the Inquiry Officer.

Subsequently, Additional Registrar of Enquiries (2), who

was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide order dated

17.01.2015 passed by the Lokayukta, framed the articles

of charge, which was issued on 08.06.2015. The

respondent No.3 challenged the order entrusting the

enquiry to the Lokayukta before the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'the

Tribunal') in Application No.8211/2015. The respondent

No.3 challenged the articles of charge dated 08.06.2015 by

filing Application No.8263/2015 before the Tribunal. Both

these applications were clubbed along with other similar

cases. All the cases were contested by the Lokayukta as

well as the State Government. The Tribunal framed the

following points for consideration:

"(i) Whether the Government can entrust enquiry against the Police Officers to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957?

(ii) Whether the Disciplinary Authority can entrust enquiry against the Police Officers to the Lokayukta under Rules 6 and 8 of the KSP(DP) Rules by empowering the Lokayukta as 'specially empowered authority'?

(iii) Whether the principles of natural justice have been followed while conducting the investigation against the applicants regarding their role in illegal mining or while proceeding against them for the alleged acceptance of bribe?

(iv) Whether the report of the Lokayukta against the applicants has been examined properly as mandated by Sec.12(4) of the K.L. Act by the 1st respondent?

(v) Whether the Articles of Charge issued to the applicants are sustainable in law?

(vi) Whether liberty could be given to the respondents to conduct further investigation and take disciplinary action against the applicants?

(vii) To what order?"

3. The Tribunal answered the aforesaid points as

follows:

      Point   No.(i)            :       Negative
      Point   No.(ii)           :       Affirmative
      Point   No.(iii)          :       Negative
      Point   No.(iv)           :       Negative
      Point   No.(v)            :       Negative
      Point   no (vi)           :       Affirmative

4. Thus in terms of the Order dated 28.11.2017,

the Tribunal disposed of the Applications and granted

liberty to the respondents therein to conduct further

investigation and take disciplinary action in accordance

with law.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner

contended as follows:

(i) That the Tribunal has held that the Lokayukta can be a "specially empowered authority" under Rule 6 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 and in the present case, the entrustment order itself indicated that it had handed over investigation of the case against the respondent No.3 to the Lokayukta as the "specially empowered authority" to investigate the case as provided under Rules 6 and 8 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965. Therefore, he contended that even if the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957 cannot be embarked upon against a police official in view of Rule 15 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965, yet the entrustment order authorized the

Lokayukta to conduct the enquiry under Rules 6 and 8 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965.

(ii) He contended that the Tribunal committed an error in quashing the articles of charge on the ground that no notice of investigation was issued to the respondent No.3. He contended that the issue in question was referred by the Government to the Lokayukta under Section 7(2-A) of the Act of 1984 and therefore the provisions of Section 9(3)(a) and

(b) of the Act of 1984 need not be resorted to. He brought to our notice that Section 9(3)(a) and (b) bears a reference to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 but not to Section 7(2-A). Therefore, the delinquent public servant need not be notified of the complaint and need not be heard in the matter of investigation.

(iii) That the investigation into illegal mining was conducted all over Karnataka and was concluded by a report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984. It was found that more than 670 officials of the Government were involved. He contended that having regard to the proportion and magnitude of the investigation, followed by the action of the Government in constituting a High Level Committee and its recommendation, the entrustment order was

issued after a prolonged deliberation. Therefore, the articles of charge cannot be set at naught on the ground that the same was issued belatedly.

7. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.3 contended as follows:

i) That the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957 are not applicable to police personnel in view of the inbuilt exclusion contained in Rule 3(3) which excludes the application of the aforesaid Rules to any persons whose appointment is governed by any special provisions made by or under any law. He also contended that the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 are alone applicable to the members of the Karnataka State Police Force under Rule 1(2). That Rule 15 of these Rules repealed the application of any Rules other than the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 to the police personnel, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he contended that the respondent No.1 could not have entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957.

ii) That the only provision enabling the petitioner to conduct an investigation against a public servant under the Act of 1984 is under Section 9.

Therefore, any investigation without complying the requirements of Section 9(3)(a) or 9(3)(b) of the Act of 1984 renders it otiose. He relied upon the following Judgment of this Court in N.Gundappa vs. State of Karnataka [ILR 1990 Kar 223].

iii) That the articles of charge and the statement of imputation of misconduct did not disclose the exact role of the respondent No.3. He contended that the articles of charge were therefore issued casually and without non-application of mind. He relied on the following judgments:

(a) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [(2012) 11 SCC 565].

(b) Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28].

(c) A Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.104460/2018 and connected petitions dated 10.09.2018.

iv) That the petitioner has not challenged the Order of the Tribunal in Application No.8211/2015 in which, the Tribunal held that the entrustment

order under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules of 1957 was unsustainable.

v) That the respondent No.1 had exonerated the respondent No.3 in a disciplinary proceedings as there was no credible evidence to prove the charges against the respondent No.3. Thus, he contended that even the present enquiry would be a waste of time and that the respondent No.3 is exposed to an avoidable enquiry.

8. W.P. No.35267/2018 is filed challenging the

correctness of the Order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the

Tribunal in Application No.9360/2015, by which, it set at

naught an enquiry ordered by the respondent No.1 as per

Rules 6 and 8 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 and in the

manner provided under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A)

Rules, 1957.

9. The facts in the above case, briefly stated, are

that, a complaint dated 05.01.2007 was lodged by

Smt.Thayamma before Lokayukta, alleging dereliction of

duty by the respondent No.2 herein, in the matter of an

investigation of an offence of the murder of her son. The

Director Vigilance (Police), Karnataka Lokayukta,

conducted a preliminary inquiry. After providing an

opportunity to the respondent No.2 to file his reply to the

allegations made against him, a preliminary report was

submitted to the Upalokayukta on 25.05.2010. Later, the

Upalokayukta called for an explanation from the

respondent No.2 regarding the allegations against him.

The respondent No.2 submitted his explanation on

18.06.2011. Meanwhile, a Circular dated 22.03.2014 was

issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of

Karnataka directing the Karnataka Lokayukta to conduct

enquiries against the police officers in respect of

complaints received by it. The Deputy Registrar,

Enquiries-4 vide letter dated 25.05.2015 submitted the

report of the Upalokayukta dated 21.05.2015 under

Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 to the respondent No.1.

Based on the said report, the respondent No.1 directed the

Lokayukta to conduct a joint departmental inquiry under

Rules 6 and 8 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 and in the

manner provided under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A)

Rules, 1957.

10. The respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the

Order of the State Government dated 09.07.2015,

entrusting the enquiry to the petitioner and the order of

the Upalokayukta dated 29.07.2015 appointing the

Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I as Inquiry Officer and

the consequent articles of charge dated 06.08.2015

framed by the said authority, challenged the same before

the Tribunal. The applicant urged the following

contentions:

(i) That the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 were framed by virtue of Section 163 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and the same being a special enactment, prevailed over the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957. Therefore, the entrustment order is erroneous and is passed without the authority of law.

(ii) That the Karnataka Lokayukta is not a Disciplinary Authority as defined under Rule 2(e) and Rule 4 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 and therefore, the enquiry was vitiated.

(iii) That the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 prevail over the Circular issued by the Principal Secretary empowering the Lokayukta against police officers and therefore the enquiry is faulty.

(iv) That there was no justification in implicating him in the report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 as the respondent No.2 was not the police officer posted in the area where the alleged offence occurred.

(v) An argument was faintly advanced by the applicant - respondent No.2 herein that the respondent No.1 had not effectively considered the report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984.

11. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2 urged

the first contention referred above, as a substantial

contention. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier Order in

Application No.8263/2015 and connected cases dated

28.11.2017, where the following points were framed for

consideration:

"(i) Whether the Government can entrust inquiry against the Police officers to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957?

(ii) Whether the Disciplinary Authority can entrust enquiry against the Police Officers to the Lokayukta under Rules 6 and 8 of the KSP (DP) Rules by empowering the Lokayukta as 'specially empowered authority'?"

12. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier Order dated

28.11.2017 in Application No.8263/2015 and allowed the

application and quashed the entrustment order of

respondent No.1 dated 09.07.2015 and the consequent

articles of charge dated 06.08.2015. It granted liberty to

the respondents therein including the petitioner herein to

examine all the related matters afresh and conduct further

disciplinary action in line with the observations made in the

Order dated 28.11.2017 in Application No.8263/2015 and

connected cases. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ

petition.

Consideration of W.P. No.34009/2015 by this Court

13. A perusal of the impugned Order passed by the

Tribunal discloses that it had held that the respondent

No.1 cannot entrust an enquiry to the petitioner under

Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957 against the

police personnel in view of the explicit bar contained in

Rule 3 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965. We do accept this as

a correct view, since the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957 are not

made applicable to police personnel, though they are

servants of the Government. However, Rules 6 and 8 of

the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 enables the respondent No.1 to

entrust an enquiry against police personnel to a "specially

empowered authority" in accordance with Rule 6 and a

joint enquiry could be conducted against all concerned

under Rule 8. The Tribunal has also held that the petitioner

is a "specially empowered authority" which can conduct an

enquiry in accordance with the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965. A

perusal of the order of entrustment dated 27.07.2013

passed by the respondent No.1 discloses that it had

authorized the Upalokayukta to conduct an enquiry against

the officers found in Annexure-II in accordance with Rules

6 and 8 of the KSP (DP) Rules, 1965 and Rule 14-A of the

KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957. Thus, the Order passed by the

Tribunal would not affect or impact the enquiry initiated by

the petitioner against the respondent No.3. Further, the

respondent No.3 has not challenged the order passed by

the Tribunal in Application No.8211/2015. Therefore, the

order passed by the Tribunal regarding the legitimacy of

the entrustment Order is inconsequential in so far as the

present case is concerned.

14. Therefore, what remains to be considered is:

(i) whether the investigation conducted by the petitioner

without complying the provisions of Section 9(3)(a) and

(b) of Act of 1984 would vitiate the proceedings? and

(ii) whether the articles of charge and the statement of

imputation of misconduct were vague or uncertain?.

15. The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was

designed to be an Act for the establishment of an

independent / autonomous body to look into complaints

against administrative actions/inaction, cases of

corruption, favoritism, official indiscipline in the

administration machinery and thereby improve the

standards of public administration. Thus, the Legislature

created a forum for the citizenry to lodge complaints,

bringing to the notice of the Lokayukta, acts constituting

inaction / corruption / favouritism. Once such a complaint

is lodged, based on a preliminary report about the veracity

of the allegations contained in such a complaint, the

Lokayukta or Upalokayukta as the case may be, would

undertake an investigation in accordance with Section

9(3)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1984 and submit a report

under Section 12(3) of the said Act recommending the

measures to be taken against the public servant

concerned.

16. By Act No.31 of 1986, sub-section (2-A) was

inserted into Section 7 of the Act of 1984 which enabled a

State Government to refer any action taken by a

Government Servant to the Lokayukta for investigation.

The said provision is extracted below:

"7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and an Upa-lokayukta.- (1) xxx (2) xxx

(2-A) Nothwithstanding anything contained in sub- sections (1) and (2), the Lokayukta or an Upa- lokayukta 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."

17. Section 9 of the Act of 1984 provides for the

manner of investigation of complaints and same is

extracted below:

"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 Upa-Lokayukta:

Provided that in case of 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 form 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,-

(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint and in the case of an investigation initiated suo moto 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.

      (4)      Save as aforesaid, the procedure for

conducting any such investigation shall be such, and may be held either in public or in camera, as the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta, as the case may be, considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

(5) The Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if, in his opinion,-

(a) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith;

(b) there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or

(c) other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies.

     (6)      In any case where the Lokayukta or
an   Upa-lokayukta    decides    not    to   entertain    a

complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint he shall record his reasons therefor and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned.

(7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action, or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation."

18. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1-

State Government is empowered under Section 7(2-A) of

the Act of 1984 to refer any action undertaken by or with

the general or specific approval of a public servant, to the

petitioner. Therefore while Sections 7(1) and (2) relate to

complaints that can be lodged by any citizen against any

Government functionary, Section 7(2-A) relates to

reference of an "action" of a Government servant for

investigation. A "complaint" necessarily involves

allegations or grievance that needs to be investigated, for

the purpose of recommending remedial measures by the

Government. In contrast, if an "action" of a Government

servant is referred for investigation, there is nothing more

to be investigated than ascertaining whether the action

referred is in accordance with law. Lord Greene M.R in

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd vs.

Wednesbury Corporation, [1947 (2) All England Reports

680] held:

"It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. What does that mean? Lawyers familiar

with the phraseology commonly used in relation to the exercise of statutory discretions often use the word "unreasonable" in a rather comprehensive sense. It is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to the matter that he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting "unreasonably". Similarly, you may have something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority".

19. There can be no recording of evidence in such

a case and there can be no "investigation" in the strict

sense of the term, but the Lokayukta would "look into" the

available papers and submit a report thereon, indicating

the reasonableness or otherwise of such administrative

action. Such a report is only for internal purposes of the

State Government to enable it to ponder over the next

course of action. Therefore, the question of complying the

provisions of Section 9(3)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1984

when an action of a Government servant is referred for

investigation, would not arise. The judgment of a learned

Single Judge of this Court in N.Gundappa (referred supra)

is therefore declared as not good law, for the proposition

that an investigation under Section 7(2-A) of the Act of

1984 requires the compliance of Section 9(3)(a) and (b) of

the Act of 1984. In that view of the matter, the finding of

the Tribunal that the report of the Lokayukta to the State

Government was without complying Section 9(3)(a) and

(b) of the Act of 1984 is set aside.

20. As far as the claim that the charges against the

respondent No.3 and the basis for the misconduct were

vague, a perusal of the report by the petitioner to the

respondent No.1 and the consequent order of the

Government enlarging the scope of the investigation

against officers including the respondent No.3, shows that

the respondent No.3 was aware of the gravamen of the

charge against him, namely that he was also one of

recipients of illegal gratification from Sri Karapudi Mahesh,

from whom, a pen drive was seized, which contained the

name of the respondent No.3 as one of the many persons

who had received bribe. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the charges against him were vague or uncertain. Having

regard to the incredible number of Government servants

involved and the complex nature of the investigation and

the meticulous details procured in the course of

investigation, it would well nigh be impossible to precisely

point out the role played by each official. The enquiry

undertaken by the petitioner cannot be compared to a

departmental enquiry against a lone employee or a few

employees. Therefore, the precedents relied upon by the

learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of

Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (referred supra) and

Kunisetty Satyanarayana (referred supra) are squarely

applicable to the case on hand.

21. In view of the above, Writ Petition

No.34009/2018 is allowed and the Order passed by the

Tribunal dated 28.11.2017 in Application No.8263/2015 is

set aside.

22. In view of the aforesaid findings, Writ Petition

No.35267/2018 is also allowed and the Order of the

Tribunal dated 05.04.2018 in Application No.9360/2015 is

set aside.

23. The petitioner is directed to conclude the

enquiry within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this Order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma