3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R-2 TO R-6;
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-7;
R-8 SRI N.M. VENKATESH-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 6-9-2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
VIDE ANNEXURE-AA AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 22-9-2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS
DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
b) Quash the complaint dated 13.11.2013 of
8th Respondent and all subsequent action
taken thereto by the first respondent and
Report dated 27.09.2016 submitted under
Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta
Act, 1984 by the first respondent.
c) Quash the Order dated 30.01.2017
bearing No.ED 647 SES 2016 passed by the
first respondent issued upon report under
Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta
Act, 1984."
(II) In Writ Petition No.45138/2017, the
petitioner has sought for the following relief:
a) To quash the order No.ED 647 SES 2016
dated 06.09.2017 passed by the second
respondent vide "Annexure - AA".
Brief facts of the case:
3. The petitioner, Sri B.Lakshminaraya, was
appointed as Librarian-cum-Clerk at Sri Balanjaneya High
School, Byrashettihalli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru
Rural District, by issuing appointment order dated
11.08.1991. The Institution was admitted to grant-in-aid
by the Competent Authority on 27.05.1995. The
appointment of the petitioner by the Institution was
approved by the State Government and thus, grant-in-aid
was accorded by its order dated 08.01.2000. During the
years 2003 and 2005, the petitioner requested the School
Management (7th respondent) to grant him permission for
purchase of the land; accordingly, the Management
granted permission on 30.10.2003 and 30.04.2005,
respectively. In the year 2013, respondent No.8
(complainant) submitted a complaint against the petitioner
alleging that, on 31.01.2004, the petitioner and three
others had jointly purchased 1 acre 28 guntas of land in
Survey Nos.100/12, 100/13, 100/14 and 100/15 of
Vajarahalli village for a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- and on
08.11.2005, the petitioner and another had jointly
purchased site bearing No.109 measuring 45 x 60 feet
situated at 17th Ward, Nelamangala town, for a sum of
Rs.2,70,000/- without obtaining necessary permission
from the Management. In the complaint, it is also alleged
that, after purchasing said two properties, the petitioner
entered into an Agreement of Sale with one Sri.
N.Shankaraiah and Sri. Shivaramaiah in respect of land
bearing Survey Nos.100/12, 100/13, 100/14 and 100/15
of Vajarahalli village for a sum of Rs.3,82,53,800/- and
the petitioner received a sum of Rs.2,82,53,800/- under
the agreement. However, the petitioner has not declared
these transactions in his assets and liabilities statements
submitted to his higher authorities in any tax assessment
years.
4. Thus, the School Management issued notice to
the petitioner and called for an explanation from him and
later the Lokayukta conducted a preliminary investigation
and submitted its report under Section 12(3) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for short, 'Lokayukta Act');
accordingly, the State Government accorded permission to
the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) to conduct
inquiry against the petitioner for his alleged misconduct.
5. Hence, the petitioner filed two Writ Petitions to
declare Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983,
as unconstitutional and to quash the complaint dated
13.11.2013, Lokayukta report under Section 12(3) dated
27.09.2016 and the order passed by the State
Government (respondent No.1) entrusting the Lokayukta
to conduct inquiry vide order dated 30.01.2017. The
petitioner also sought to quash the order dated
06.09.2017 passed by the second respondent vide
Annexure - AA. Hence, these Writ Petitions.
Submissions:
6. We have heard learned counsel
Sri M.S. Parthasarathi, the counsel for the petitioner, in
both the petitions and Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned
counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. Prathibha R.K., learned
AGA for respondent Nos.2 to 6, Sri T.Seshagiri Rao,
learned counsel for respondent No.7. Respondent No.8 is
served and unrepresented.
7. We have perused the material on record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri M.S. Parthasarathi contended that, the petitioner was
an employee of a Private Aided Educational Institution;
thus, the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, are not
applicable, and as the petitioner is not a 'public servant',
the complaint, the preliminary inquiry, and report
- 10 -
submitted by Lokayukta and the State Government
according permission to the Lokayukta to conduct inquiry
against the petitioner is not tenable under law. The
counsel further contended that the authorities, without
applying the mind and without considering the true
purport of Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act,
1983, passed the impugned orders, which is prima facie
unconstitutional. It is a settled position of law that it is for
the Management of a Private Educational Institution to
take disciplinary action against its employees. On all
these grounds, the counsel prayed to allow the Writ
Petitions.
9. Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel
appearing for the Lokayukta - respondent No.1, submitted
that the complaint against the petitioner was given to the
office of Lokayukta. A preliminary inquiry was conducted
as per Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act and the report was
submitted under Section 12(3) thereof to the State
Government, which is the Competent Authority. Even
though Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules do not apply to the
- 11 -
report of Lokayukta, as per Section 12(2) of the Lokayukta
Act, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner can entrust
an inquiry to the Lokayukta as an inquiry authority and
there is no bar in law to do so. Therefore, the State
Government invoking Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules to
entrust the matter to Lokayukta for conducting an inquiry
and submitting a report is not per se illegal. Thus, learned
counsel for the Lokayukta and State Government
submitted that there is no merit in both the petitions and
the same may be dismissed.
10. We have narrated in detail the facts of both the
cases. The common ground of attack in both cases is that,
pursuant to the complaint made before the Lokayukta,
preliminary inquiry was conducted under the provisions of
Section 9 and other provisions of the Lokayukta Act and a
report was submitted under Section 12(3) of the
Lokayukta Act to the State Government, which is the
Competent Authority under the Lokayukta Act. The State
Government entrusted the inquiry to be conducted by the
Lokayukta as against the petitioner as if he is covered
- 12 -
within the meaning of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules. The
other ground raised in both the petitions is that Section
101 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, is
unconstitutional.
11. Section 101 of the Karnataka Education Act,
1983, grants power to the Government to impose
penalties. This Section is part of a larger chapter on the
control of Private Educational Institutions and comes after
Sections dealing with the conduct and service conditions of
employees and concludes with other control measures.
12. The purpose of this provision is to empower the
Government to impose penalties for specific actions or
inactions within the education system. Chapter XV of the
Karnataka Education Act deals with the control of Private
Educational Institutions, and follows Sections 87 to 100
that address various aspects of employee's service,
including qualifications, appointments, pay, code of
conduct, dismissal and appeals. The nature and extent of
the penalties that may be imposed under this Section are
further detailed in related rules and notifications issued
- 13 -
under the Act, such as the Karnataka Educational
Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of
Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and
Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999. Thus,
Section 101 of the Act cannot be declared as
unconstitutional.
13. In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioner
contended that he is not a public servant, thus provisions
of KCS (CCA) Rules is not applicable to him. Before
proceeding further with the aforesaid issue raised in both
the cases, it will be useful to extract the relevant legal
provisions as under:
The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984:
Section 2(4):
"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires.-
xxx
(4) "Competent Authority" in relation to a public
servant means,-
(a) in the case of Chief Minister or a member of
the State Legislature, the Governor acting in his
discretion;
- 14 -
(b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary, the
Chief Minister;
(c) in the case of a Government servant other
than a Secretary, the Government of Karnataka;
(d) in the case of any other public servant, such
authority as may be prescribed;"
14. This provision deals with the assignment of
matters to Lokayukta. It states that the Lokayukta can
issue a general or special order to assign which matters
Upa-Lokayukta can investigate. Further, any investigation
or action taken by an Upa-Lokayukta is valid, regardless of
the specific assignment order.
---*---
Section 2(6):
"(6) "Government Servant" means a
person who is a member of the Civil Services of
the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post
or is serving in connection with the affairs of the
State of Karnataka and includes any such person
whose services are temporarily placed at the
disposal of the Government of India, the
Government of another State, a local authority
or any person, whether incorporated or not, and
also any person in the service of the Central or
- 15 -
another State Government or a local or other
authority whose services are temporarily placed
at the disposal of the Government of
Karnataka;"
a) It includes any person who is part of the Civil
Services of Karnataka; b) anyone who holds a civil post
within the State's administration; c) any person who is in
service in connection with the affairs of the State of
Karnataka; d) a person whose services are temporarily
placed at the disposal of other entities, such as the
Government of India, another State, or a local authority;
and e) a person from the Central or another State
Government or a local authority whose services are
temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of
Karnataka. Thus, employee in Government-aided Private
Institution has some rights and benefits comparable to
Government servants, such as pension and gratuity;
thus, their service is often treated as "akin to a post
under the State Government" for practical purposes.
Therefore, they are also bound by Conduct Rules. In the
instant cases, the petitioner has taken the contention
- 16 -
that the complainant has no jurisdiction to lodge the
complaint.
15. Section 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 a 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 forms 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-motu 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;
- 17 -
(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 Upa- lokayukta
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 there for and communicate the same to
the complainant and the public servant
concerned.
- 18 -
(7) The conduct of an investigation under
this Act as against the 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."
16. Thus, Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta
Act, 1984, dealt with procedure of investigation after a
complaint is made against a public servant. This Section
allows for complaints to be filed for grievance or
misconduct by public servants in Section 2(12) of the Act.
Therefore, the Lokayukta submits its report under Section
12 of the Act.
---*---
17. Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957,
empowers the Karnataka Lokayukta to initiate suo motu
disciplinary proceedings against a Government Servant.
The provision reads as under:
"Rule 14-A. Procedure in cases entrusted to the
Lokayukta.--
- 19 -
(1) The provisions of subrule
(2) shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in Rules 9 to 11-A and 13, be
applicable for purposes of proceeding against
Government Servants whose alleged misconduct
has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or
an Upa-lokayukta either under the provisions of
the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on
reference from Government (or where offences
alleged against them punishable under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been
investigated by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police
before 21st day of December, 1992.
xxx
Explanation: In this rule, the expressions
"Lokayukta" and "Upa-lokayukta" shall
respectively have the meaning assigned to them
in the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,1984 (and the
expression "Karnataka Lokayukta Police" means
the police wing established under Section 15 of
the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and includes,
so far as may be, the corresponding
establishment under the Karnataka State
Vigilance Commission Rules, 1980, and the
expression "Inspector-General of Police" shall be
construed accordingly."
---*---
- 20 -
18. Insofar as conducting of inquiry as against
employee of Private Education Institution is concerned,
under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta can
conduct an inquiry against an employee of a Private
Educational Institution if it is aided by the Government and
if the Government refers the matter under Rule 14-A of
the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1957.
19. This Court on many occasions held that,
employees of Educational Institutions that receive
Government aid are considered akin to Government
employees for certain purposes. The rationale is that their
salaries and service conditions are often regulated and
funded by the State Government, even if the Institution is
privately managed.
20. The KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, do not apply
automatically to employees of Private Institutions.
However, if the regulations or service rules of an Aided
Private Institution incorporate or adopt the KCS (CCA)
- 21 -
Rules, then the Government can refer disciplinary matters
to the Lokayukta.
21. Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules empowers
the State Government to entrust a disciplinary inquiry to
the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta. If the Government
determines that a disciplinary inquiry is warranted against
an employee of an Aided Private Institution, it can use this
Rule to refer the case to the Lokayukta.
22. In sum and substance, the complaint against
the petitioner is that he failed to declare his assets and
liabilities within the Management of the School in respect
of concerned income tax assessment years and thereby
the petitioner fails to perform his duties as public servant,
which is unbecoming of a public servant under Rule 3 of
Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
23. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the recommendation of the Lokayukta
under Section 12(3) of the Act is passed without
application of mind.
- 22 -
24. On going through the report under Section
12(3) of the Act and the order passed by the State
Government under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules
authorizing the Lokayukta to proceed with the inquiry, in
our opinion, is tenable in law.
25. We are of the view that the authorities, while
passing the orders and authorizing the Lokayukta to
proceed with the inquiry, have applied their minds. The
Lokayukta, while submitting its report under Section 12(3)
of the Act, has discussed about the complaint against the
petitioner in detail and has come to prima facie conclusion
that the petitioner has not submitted his assets and
liabilities statements for the particular income tax
assessment years; thus, it came to the conclusion that the
petitioner purchased certain lands and sites without
permission of the higher authority, which is mandatory
under law. Thus, there is no error in continuing with the
inquiry proceedings against the petitioner. All other
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and which
have not been answered in both the petitions, are
- 23 -
permitted to be raised before the inquiry officer in
accordance with law.
26. Looking from any angle, we are of the view
that, the petitioner has not made out any grounds to
interfere with the orders under challenge. There is no
merit in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, the Writ
Petitions are dismissed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of, as they do
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM
