Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sudheer P Banare vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7348
WP No. 1375 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2021 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUDHEER P. BANARE,
S/O PADMANABH N SHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SATHISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING,
Digitally signed
by SUCHITRA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MJ VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7348
WP No. 1375 of 2021
4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-15,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER OF ENTRUSTMENT DATED 27.08.2019 ANNEXURE-K AS
WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED
30.09.2019 ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned
order of entrustment dated 27.08.2019, vide Annexure-L,
as well as the impugned Articles of charge dated
30.09.2019, vide Annexure-L.
2. The petitioner is assailing the entrustment order
passed by respondent No.2/Commissioner of Karnataka
Housing Board on the ground that respondent
No.2/Commissioner has no authority to invoke Rule 14-A
NC: 2024:KHC:7348
of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1957, (for short, 'CCA Rules'). The
petitioner is questioning the order of entrustment to
respondent No.2 on the ground that it is one without
jurisdiction and the same is contrary to the judgment
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of M.N.Jeevanna vs. State of Karnataka,
W.P.No.8267/2018.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
countered the petitioner's contention by placing reliance
on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of K.S.Linge Gowda vs. State of
Karnataka,W.P.No.36300/2017c/w W.P.No.47293/2016 .
He has also brought to the notice of this Court that the
Division Bench, placing reliance on the judgement
rendered in R.F.Hudedavar vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 2021 SCC Online Kar 15858:(2021) 6 Kant LJ
385, has clearly held that the Commissioner of Housing
Board, being an appointing and disciplinary authority, is
NC: 2024:KHC:7348
clothed with power and authority to invoke Rule 14-A of
CCA Rules.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents. I have given my anxious consideration to the
judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the Division Bench judgment cited by the
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
5. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the
relevant paragraphs of the Division Bench judgment and
the same reads as under:
"36. Subsequent to Gopal Hanumantha Kase's
case referred to supra another coordinate Bench of this
Court in the judgment in R.F.Hudedavar's case referred
to supra referring to Rule 3 of KL Rules clarified that for
the purpose of Sections 2(4) and 12 of the KL Act, the
Government may be the competent authority, however
Rule 14-A of CCA Rules apply only to the Government
servant and that does not cover public servant. It was
further held that in such cases, the Government which
was the competent authority for the purpose of KL Act
has to forward the report to the Disciplinary Authority
NC: 2024:KHC:7348
and the Disciplinary Authority on examining the records
may either itself conduct disciplinary enquiry or decide
to entrust the same to Lokayukta. The Government
without any input from the immediate
employer/competent authority cannot decide to entrust
or entrust the matter to Lokayukta.
37. Since in R.F.Hudedavar's case interplay of
rule 3 of KL Rules and Rule 14-A of CCA Rules and the
object of interpretation of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules was
considered in detail, the said case is aptly applicable to
the facts of the present case. Having regard to such
position, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to
other judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the
respondents. Still only the contention of the petitioner in
W.P.No.47293/2016 succeeds on the ground of
competence of the entrustment order."
6. Having taken note of the law laid down by the
Division Bench in two judgments, the contention of the
petitioner that respondent No.2 has no authority to invoke
Rule 14-A of CCA Rules cannot be acceded to. The Division
Bench in the judgment cited supra has clearly held that
respondent No.2, being an appointing authority as well as
disciplinary authority, is vested with powers to make an
entrustment in favour of respondent No.3/Lokayukta. The
NC: 2024:KHC:7348
contention of the petitioner that it is only the State of
Karnataka which has jurisdiction to invoke Rule 14-A
cannot be acceded to in the light of law laid down by the
Division Bench in the case of R.F.Hudedavar, cited supra,
fallowed by the Division Bench in the case of K.S.Linge
Gowda, cited supra.
5. In that view of the matter, no indulgence is
warranted. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is devoid of merits and
accordingly stands dismissed.
ii. Respondent No.4/enquiry officer is hereby
directed to expedite the enquiry and decide
it in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
