Karnataka High Court
Shri Anand Karlakunti vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121
WP No. 102685 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 102685 OF 2022 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ANAND KARLAKUNTI,
S/O. HULAGAPPA KARLAKUNTI,
AGE:45 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER,
O/O.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KRIDL),
HARAPANAHALLI, DUB-DIVISION,
BALLARY DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAY R. SARATHY AND
SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally
signed by
SHIVAKUMAR
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH
HIREMATH Date:
2023.12.07
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
11:57:26
+0530 M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
DEVELOPMENT LTD (KRIDL),
GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA,
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAJESHEKAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121
WP No. 102685 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED
ENTRUSTMENT ORDER BEARING NO.GRA.AA.PAM 4 KA.GRA.MU
2017 DATED 20TH FEBRUARY 2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING
NO.KRIDL/ADALITHA/UPA-LOK-1/DE/438/2017/2021-22/2670
DATED 09.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is questioning the entrustment order dated
20.02.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and also the order
passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09.02.2022. In terms of the
entrustment order at Annexure 'C', the Government has entrusted
the enquiry to the Lokayukta to investigate the complaint against
the petitioner. Subsequent to entrustment, the Lokayukta
conducted the enquiry and submitted a report to the Government in
terms of Annexure - M. Pursuant to the report submitted by the
Lokayukta, the 2nd respondent has taken action vide Annexure - E.
In terms of the said order petitioner's four annual increments have
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121
been withheld and the petitioner's promotion is also withheld for
four years. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, petitioner is
before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
petitioner being an employee of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure
Development Ltd, the entrustment by the Government to the
Lokayukta itself is one without jurisdiction. The learned counsel
would refer to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.47719/2018 wherein the Division Bench of this
Court has held that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to hold the
enquiry against the employee of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure
Development Ltd.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the
fact that the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view as urged
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that
the entrustment by the Government to the Lokayukta to hold
enquiry against the petitioner is one without jurisdiction as the
petitioner is admittedly the employee of Karnataka Rural
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121
Infrastructure Development Ltd. Consequently, the order of
entrustment is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
6. As a consequence, this Court has to hold that the report
of the Lokayukta holding the petitioner guilty is also one without
jurisdiction and same is quashed. Further, as a consequence of
this the order passed by the 2nd respondent withholding the
increments as well as the promotion of the petitioner based on the
report of the Lokayukta is also quashed.
7. However, it is relevant to note that in the aforementioned
judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has reserved liberty to
the State Government to submit a report under Section 12(2) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act to the Managing Director of Karnataka
Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. Once the report is submitted,
the competent authority is at liberty to take appropriate action
based on the report, as observed in the aforementioned judgment.
8 Needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to all
consequential benefits in view of the order at Annexure - C being
set-aside.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14121
9. It is further made clear that nothing is expressed in this
order on the merits of the complaint lodged against the petitioner.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BRN
