Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Lokayukta vs Rajendra Gururao Desai on 6 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
WP No.201707 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.201707 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S. BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N 1. RAJENDRA GURURAO DESAI
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH S/O GURURAO DESAI
COURT OF AGE: 53 YEARS
KARNATAKA
OCC: LECTURER IN GOVERNMENT
PU COLLEGE KUDAGI
TQ: B.BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA
R/A: P NO.08, VENKATADRI NILAYA
GURUPADESHWAR NAGAR
(IBRAHIMPUR) VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(PRE-UNIVERSITY) M.S. BUILDING
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
WP No.201707 of 2022
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NARENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 10.12.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2920/2019
VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated
10.12.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Application
No.2920/2019 whereby the application filed by respondent
No.1 herein is allowed and the notice issued by the
petitioner herein dated 31.12.2015 is quashed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
2. Brief facts of the case.
i) The respondent No.1 was working as Lecturer
in Sociology at Government Pre-University College,
Kudagi, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk of Vijayapura District.
When he was discharging his duty, there was a complaint
against him for demanding bribe. On the basis of the
complaint, departmental enquiry has been initiated and
the respondent No.2 - the State Government herein has
entrusted the enquiry to petitioner - Lokayukta invoking
Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'CCA Rules, 1957'). In turn, the petitioner -
Lokayukta entrusted the matter to Assistant Registrar
Enquiries-3. The Inquiring Officer issued Articles of
charges to the respondent No.1 and after conducting an
enquiry held that charges leveled against the respondent
No.1 has not been proved and accordingly submitted a
report to the Disciplinary Authority and while doing so,
issued notice to the petitioner on 31.12.2015. Being
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
aggrieved by the said notice dated 31.12.2015, the
respondent No.1 has approached the Tribunal by filing an
application in Application No.2920/2019. The Tribunal,
following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the
case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Limited, Bangalore Vs. Javarai Gowda and another1
has allowed the application and set aside the impugned
notice dated 31.12.2015 issued to the respondent No.1.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - Lokayukta is
before this Court in this writ petition impugning the order
dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Tribunal.
3. Sri Subhash Mallapur, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner - Lokayukta has contended
that exercising the jurisdiction vested under Rule 14-A of
CCA Rules, 1957, the petitioner was entrusted
departmental enquiry by the respondent No.2. In turn,
the petitioner entrusted the matter to the Assistant
Registrar Enquiries-3 to conduct an enquiry and to submit
2015 (2) AIR 399
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
a report. It is submitted that the petitioner after receiving
the report from the Inquiring Officer has power to send the
Inquiring Officer's findings and the recommendation to the
respondent No.2 - State Government as contemplated
under Rule 14-A (d) of CCA Rules, 1957. Hence, the
petitioner has submitted a report to the Disciplinary
Authority exercising the power conferred under this Rule
and issued a Notice dated 31.12.2015.
4. The next limb of argument of the learned
counsel for the Lokayukta is that the judgment referred by
the Tribunal in the case of Javarai Gowda (supra) has
been held per incuriam by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Shankarappa vs. KPTCL and
another2 and therefore without considering this aspect of
the matter, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order
dated 10.12.2021. Hence, the same is unsustainable and
sought for allowing the writ petition.
ILR 2017 KAR 5487
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
5. Per contra, Sri Narendra Reddy, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted
that Inquiring Officer after issuing Articles of charges has
conducted an enquiry and submitted a report stating that
charges are not proved. It is contended that as per Rule
14-A(d) of CCA Rules, 1957, the petitioner - Lokayukta
instead of sending report to the Disciplinary Authority, has
issued a Notice dated 31.12.2015 to the respondent No.1.
This action of the petitioner - Lokayukta is contrary to
Rule 14-A(d) of CCA Rules, 1957. He further contended
that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner -
Lokayukta in the case of Shankarappa (supra) is not
applicable to the facts of the case as in the said case, this
Court has held that Upa-Lokayukta has the power to send
recommendation to the Disciplinary Authority Authority.
But in the case on hand, notice issued by the petitioner -
Lokayukta stating that he has reasons to disagree with the
findings recorded by the Inquiring Officer. Therefore, the
impugned notice is contrary to the provisions of CCA
Rules, 1957.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
6. Sri Viranagouda M. Biradar, the learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent No.2 - Disciplinary Authority contended that
the Inquiring Officer after conducting enquiry submitted
report to the Disciplinary Authority exercising the power
under Rule 11-A of CCA Rules, 1957 and it is for the
Disciplinary Authority to take action against the
respondent No.1.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the petition papers including the decisions relied
upon the petitioner - Lokayukta.
8. The records reveals that the respondent No.1
was working as a Lecturer in Sociology at Government
Pre-University College, Kudagi, Basavana Bagewadi,
Vijayapura District; pursuant to the complaint against the
respondent No.1, who demanded bribe of Rs.200/- from
the complainant - Sri Yamanapa Kalagaggari for issuing
his Transfer Certificate and accepting the said amount
resulted in initiation of a criminal case against the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
respondent No.1 by the petitioner - Lokayukta. After a
full-fledged trial by the Special Court, the respondent No.1
was acquitted in the criminal case in Special Case(LOK)
No.10/2010 by its judgment dated 13.06.2013 and on the
same charges departmental enquiry has been initiated by
the Government. Exercising the power under Rule 14-A of
CCA Rules, 1957, Disciplinary Authority has entrusted
departmental enquiry to the petitioner by order dated
29.08.2012. The petitioner in turn entrusted the matter to
Assistant Registrar of Enquiries-3. The Inquiring Officer
issued Article of charges to the respondent No.1, who
participated in the enquiry. After conducting full-fledged
enquiry, the Inquiring Officer has submitted a report on
03.12.2015 holding that charges have not been proved.
9. Under Rule 14-A(d) of CCA Rules, 1957 after
the enquiry is completed, records of the case along with
the finding of the Inquiring Officer and the
recommendation of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, as
the case may be, case shall be send to the Government.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
But in the case on hand, the petitioner - Lokayukta
instead of sending the findings of the Inquiring Officer and
recommending to the State Government, has issued
impugned notice dated 31.12.2015 to the respondent
No.1, wherein it has been stated that he has reasons to
disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Officer and
directed the respondent No.1 to appear before him on
28.01.2016. This action of the petitioner - Lokayukta is
contrary to Rule 14-A(d) of CCA Rules, 1957.
10. It is very clear from bare reading of Rule 14-
A(d) of CCA Rules, 1957 that after the enquiry is
completed, the records of the case along with the findings
of the Inquiring Officer and the recommendation of the
Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta as the case may be, shall
be sent to the Government. After report has been
submitted by the Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 11-A of CCA
Rules, 1957 it is for the Disciplinary Authority either to
accept that report or remit the case to the Inquiring
Authority for further enquiry.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
11. For ready reference, Rule 11-A of CCA Rules,
1957 is extracted as under:
"11-A. Action on the inquiry report.
- (1) The Disciplinary Authority Authority, if
it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may,
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing,
remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for
further inquiry and report and the Inquiring
Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold
the further inquiry according to the
provisions of Rule 11 as far as may be.
(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if
it disagree with the findings of the Inquiring
Authority on any article of charge record its
reasons for such disagreement and record
its own findings on such charge if the
evidence on record is sufficient for the
purpose.
(3) If the Disciplinary Authority having
regard to its findings, on all or any of the
articles of charge is of the opinion that 1[one
or more of the penalties specified in rule 8]
should be imposed on the Government
servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
contained in Rule 12, make an order
imposing such penalty;
Provided that in every case where it is
necessary to consult the Commission, the
record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by
the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission
for its advice on the penalties proposed to
be imposed on the Government servant and
such advice shall be taken into consideration
before making any order imposing any
penalty on the Government servant.
[(4) x x x x x.]"
In the case on hand, the petitioner - Lokayukta instead of
sending finding of the Inquiring Officer and the
recommendation to the Government issued the impugned
notice dated 31.12.2015. Therefore, the impugned notice
issued by the Upa-lokayukta dated 31.12.2015 is contrary
to the provisions of Rules 14-A and 11-A of CCA Rules,
1957.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the finding of the Tribunal that Lokayukta
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
or Upa-Lokayukta have no authority to disagree with the
finding of the Inquiring Officer is not correct as same is
contrary to Rule 14-A(d) of CCA Rules, 1957. In support
of his contention he has relied upon judgment of
coordinate Bench in the case of Shankarappa (supra). In
the said judgment, the coordinate Bench has held that
Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta may disagree with the finding
of the Inquiring Officer but they have no power to do de
novo enquiry and they cannot issue notice for further
enquiry. In view of the above the finding to that effect by
the Tribunal is not correct and same is unsustainable.
13. In the impugned notice, it is stated that the
petitioner has disagreed with the report and therefore he
has issued notice to the respondent No.1 calling for
explanation. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the
petitioner in Shankarappa's case (supra)is not applicable
to the case on hand since in the said judgment what is
challenged is recommendation made by the Lokayukta to
Disciplinary Authority.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1996-DB
14. In the light of the above discussions, the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not call for
any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
Ct;Vk
