Sri Ramaprasad R vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 4926 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

                          AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

     WRIT PETITION NO.19670 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI RAMAPRASAD R
     S/O LATE T RANGASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
     WORKING AS SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR
     OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR
     SARJAPURA,
     RRL TOWERS
     2ND FLOOR SOMPURA GATE
     SARJAPURA BANGALORE-562125.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH K, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION)
      M S BUILDING
      BANGALORE-560001.

2.    THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
      M S BUILDING
      BANGALORE-560001.
                                2



                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SHILPA S GOGI, AGA FOR R1
    SRI VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.12.2020 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.5342/2020 (ANNEXURE-A)
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.
5342/2020 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BFORE THE
HON'BLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B), IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.07.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, POONACHA J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the

following reliefs:

"a) Call for records from the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in respect of the impugned Order dated 24/12/2020 passed in Application No.5342/2020 (Annexure-A);

b) Set aside the impugned order dated 24/12/2020 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.5342/2020 (Annexure-A) and consequently allow the said Application No.5342/2020 as prayed for by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Tribunal (Annexure-B), in the interest of justice and equity.

c) Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and

circumstances of the case, including the cost of this Writ Petition."

2. The relevant facts leading to the present Writ

Petition are that while the Petitioner was working as a Sub

Registrar at Mysuru North, Mysuru, one Siddamma

presented a Confirmation Deed dated 7.12.2013 executed

by his Highness Sri Srikantadatta Narasimha Raja Wodeyar

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Maharaja') and the same

was registered by the Petitioner. That due to the ill health

of the Maharaja, the formalities were conducted in the

ground floor of the office of the Sub Registrar and the

Deed was registered. After the demise of Maharaja, his

wife gave a complaint to the second Respondent -

Lokayukta alleging that the Petitioner has registered the

Confirmation Deed dated 7.12.2013 which is not executed

by her husband - Maharaja. On receipt of the complaint,

the second Respondent investigated the matter and

pursuant to the final scrutiny note dated 28.10.2015

closed the complaint.

3. That on 30.4.2016 a complaint was given by

one Sri H.S.Cheluvaraju, a former colleague of the

Petitioner, to second Respondent. Upon being notified of

the same, the Petitioner sent a reply dated 19.9.2018,

inter alia detailing that there was no misconduct on his

part. The second Respondent, not being satisfied with the

reply of the Petitioner, submitted a report dated 20.8.2019

under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') recommending

initiation of enquiry and to entrust the same to the second

Respondent. Based on the recommendation, the first

Respondent passed an order under Rule 14-A of the

Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCA

Rules') entrusting the matter to the second Respondent,

pursuant to which an enquiry officer was nominated who

issued the articles of charge. Being aggrieved by the order

of entrustment and issuance of articles of charge, the

Petitioner filed Application No.5342/2020 before the

Tribunal. By order dated 24.12.2020 the Tribunal

dismissed the Application of the Petitioner. Being

aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Sri Satish K, learned Counsel for the Petitioner

vehemently contended:

i) that the complaint lodged by the wife of the

Maharaja being closed, the second complaint lodged

by a former colleague of the Petitioner ought not to

have been proceeded with;

ii) that the complaint made against the Petitioner

is vitiated by malafides;

iii) that there is sufficient material to demonstrate

that the charge made against the Petitioner is not

sustainable;

iv) that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating

the facts of the case in a proper perspective and

ought not to have dismissed the Application filed by

the Petitioner.

Hence, he seeks for allowing of the Writ Petition and

granting of the reliefs sought for.

5. Per contra, Smt Shilpa S.Gogi, learned AGA

appearing for the first Respondent and Sri Venkatesh

Arbatti, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 justifies the

impugned order.

6. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record. The question that arises for

consideration is:

Whether the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the

Tribunal is liable to be interfered with?

7. Pursuant to the complaint filed by said Sri

Cheluvaraju against the Petitioner, the matter was referred

to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta,

under Section 15(3) of the Act for investigation.

Accordingly, a report dated 26.9.2017 was submitted. The

aspects stated in the report have also been noticed in the

report dated 20.8.2019 given under Section 12(3) of the

Act. In the said report, the following aspects are

forthcoming:

i) that on 7.12.2013 when the Confirmation Deed

was registered the Maharaja was taking treatment at

Bengaluru palace and Dr.Anand was giving treatment;

ii) that the staff of the Sub Registrar office,

Mysore, have stated that on 7.12.2013 they have not seen

the Maharaja appearing in the Sub Registrar's office and

they have not verified the Confirmation Deed;

iii) The Police Inspector has stated that he has

recorded the statement of Smt.Siddamma, in whose favour it

is allegedly stated that the property was gifted and she has

stated that she was doing horticulture work at the palace

about 55 years back and she has worked at the palace for 5

years. Thereafter, the then Maharaja had given a chit that

she would be given a land which chit she handed over to her

sister's son Sri Raja. That she was taken to the Registration

office by her sister's son Raja accompanied by an Advocate

and she has specifically stated that the Maharaja did not

come to the office since he was not well;

iv) that the Police Inspector has stated that as per

his investigation the Maharaja was under treatment from

19.11.2013 to 28.11.2013 at Vikram Hospital, Bengaluru

and the Maharaja died on 10.12.2013 at Vikram Hospital;

v) that Smt Pramoda Devi, the wife of the

Maharaja has affirmed that the Maharaja did not come to

Mysuru on 7.12.2013;

vi) that a certificate is issued by Dr.K.Anand,

Plastic Surgeon, Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein it is

stated that the Maharaja was under his treatment and

check-up (dressing done on daily basis) during the period

28.11.2013 to 10.12.2013 at Bengaluru Palace, Bengaluru,

under his supervision and the Maharaja was advised not to

travel and he was staying at Bengaluru during the said

period;

vii) the Police Inspector tried to contact the

witnesses of Confirmation Deed dated 7.12.2013 and

reported that the addresses furnished are fake. The Police

Inspector further stated that the signature of the Maharaja

found on the Confirmation Deed dated 7.12.2013 differs

from the signatures found on other documents.

8. The articles of charge against the Petitioner

reads as under:

"You DGO, named above while working as the then Sub Registrar, North Sub-Registrar Office, Mysuru (Presently working as Senior Sub Registrar, Bidarahalli, Bengaluru) although the property bearing site No.10, Janjar No.155, measuring East to West 300 feet and North to South 200 feet (in all 60,000 square feet) carved out of the land bearing Sy.No.41 of Alanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District belongs to the erstwhile maharaja of Mysuru, you DGO, on the basis of an unregistered Gift Order dated 05.03.1962 and by flouting all rules and regulations laid down in Registration Act and T.P.Act and by hand-in-glow with the executee Smt. Siddamma have registered a Confirmation Deed on 7.12.2013 in favour of the said Smt. Siddamma purporting to have been executed by the executor Sri Srikantadatha Narasimha Raja Wodeyar S/o Erstwhile Maharaja of Mysuru Sri Jayachamaraja Wodeyar although Sri Srikantadatha Narasimha Raja Wodeyar was under treatment at Bengaluru palace as on that date and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited negligence and lack of devotion to duty and committed an act of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of KCS (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

9. It is forthcoming from a perusal of the

impugned order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Tribunal

that upon appreciation of the report under Section 12(3) of

the Act and upon noticing that the entrustment order

passed under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules entrusting

enquiry to the Lokayukta authorities and the articles of

charge has noticed that no cause of action arises to the

applicant to approach the Tribunal. In doing so, the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Secretary, Ministry of Defence and another v.

Prabhash Chandra Mirdha1, in the case of Union of

India and another v. Kunishetty Satyanarayana2 as

well as the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

the case of Vijay Kumar G.Sulakhe v. State of

Karnataka3 have been noticed while dismissing the

Application of the Petitioner.

10. Upon noticing the report of the Lokayukta and

the order of the Tribunal, it is forthcoming that various and

several factual aspects are involved and for the purpose of

adjudication of the same an enquiry is required to be

conducted. Hence, it is not possible to adjudicate upon the

(2012) 11 SCC 565

(2006) 12 SCC 28

WP.No.104460/2018, DD 10.9.2018

matter arising for consideration at the present stage of

entrustment.

11. The Tribunal after looking into the contents of

the report under Section 12(3) of the Act has recorded a

categorical finding that there is prima facie material to

show the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged

incident. Having regard to the same, no ground is made

out by the Petitioner to interfere with the said finding in

the present Writ Petition.

12. The contention of the Petitioner, that by virtue

of the final scrutiny note of the second Respondent and the

order dated 28.10.2015 wherein, the complaint lodged by

the wife of late Maharaja has been closed would be a bar

to once again investigate the Petitioner for the very same

facts that have been alleged in the subsequent complaint

has, also been considered by the Tribunal. It has been

noticed by the Tribunal that while closing the earlier

complaint, no investigation was carried out. Hence, the

investigation having been carried out in the present

complaint, closure of the earlier complaint would not be a

bar to carryout enquiry in the present proceedings.

13. In view of the aforementioned, no ground is

made out to interfere with the order passed by the

Tribunal. The question framed for consideration is

answered in the negative.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as

being devoid of merit.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

nd