Dismissed

Devaraj.Y v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2021WP/3057/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justices Sharma and Rangaswamy dismissed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's refusal to entertain a challenge against an order entrusting a departmental enquiry to the Lokayukta. The Court held the entrustment order was not without application of mind and the petitioner lacked a firm cause of action to halt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Devaraj.Y Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.3057 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DEVARAJ.Y S/O YELLAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT CENTRAL-1 DIVISION, ROOM NO.204, 2^ND FLOOR, ANNEXE BUILDING-3, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 R/O ROOM NO.817, 1^ST D MAIN, 2^ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, NEAR GAGHAVENDRASWAMY TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560085.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS REGISTRAR. … RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2, NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.3 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7030/2019 MARKED AS ANNEXURE - C BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition is filed assailing the correctness of the decision dated 24-11-2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in Application No.7030/2019. The Tribunal refused to entertain a challenge to the Order of the State Government entrusting the conduct of a departmental enquiry to the Lokayukta

¶22

¶23

under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957' for short) as well as the consequent articles of charge framed.

¶24

The application filed before the Tribunal discloses that the petitioner, an Assistant Engineer with Public Works Department was deputed to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike at the Traffic Engineering Division. A citizen named K.Vishwaraj lodged a complaint on 20-10-2015 alleging irregularities/dereliction of duty/ corruption by many officials including the petitioner herein, in the matter of awarding work without noticing whether the earlier works were done under maintenance by the contractor. Based on the complaint, a show cause notice was issued by the Upa-lokayukta, which was replied by the petitioner. The enquiry officer nominated by the UpaLokayukta conducted a preliminary enquiry and thereafter submitted his report. The Upa-Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 holding that the allegations against the

¶25

¶26

petitioner were prima-facie true and recommended a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and requested permission to conduct the enquiry under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957. The State Government later passed an order under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957 and entrusted the conduct of the departmental enquiry to the Upa-lokayukta-I. Following the above, an articles of charge was issued against the petitioner and others.

¶27

The petitioner challenged the legality of the order entrusting the enquiry to the Upa-lokayukta-I on the ground that the State Government failed to apply its mind before entrusting the enquiry. He also claimed that the complainant had not filed the complaint within 6 months from the date he came to know of the action. He claimed that the allegations related to work that was carried out in the year 2012-13, while the complaint was filed in the year 2015.

¶28

The application was contested by the official respondents who contended that the challenge to the

¶29

¶30

articles of charge cannot be entertained at this stage in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 . They contended that the entrustment order clearly indicates that the Government had applied its mind before entrusting the enquiry. They contended that the charges were clear and distinct against each of the officials involved and thus, cannot be disturbed.

¶31

The Tribunal considered the gravamen of the complaint, the consequent show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the preliminary enquiry and the report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, 1984 as well as the entrustment order and held that there was no jurisprudential error. It also considered the various submissions of the petitioner bordering on the sanity of the complainant on the ground that it was filed belatedly and rejected it.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order of the Tribunal, this writ is filed. Sri Mahesh R.Uppin strenuously

¶33

¶34

contended that the requirement of application of mind by the State Government before entrusting an enquiry to the Lokayukta is not without any purpose. He claimed that in the present case, the entrustment order was a mirror reflection of the report under Section 12(3) Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and there was no palpable application of mind. The learned Counsel relied upon the following precedents in support of his contention:

¶35

i) DR. K. LALITHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2019 (4) KAR. L.J. 344 (DB).

¶36

ii) K. S. NANJEGOWDA VS. STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BENGALURU AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 (1) KAR. L.J. 498.

¶37

The learned Government pleader submitted that the petitioner has no firm cause of action at this stage to challenge the articles of charge or the entrustment order under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1957. She contended that the State Government had indeed applied its mind before passing the order entrusting the enquiry.

¶38

¶39

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The entrustment order indicates that the State Government did apply its mind and found that there was a prima-facie case against the petitioner and others. While arriving at such a finding, the State Government had the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, report of the Upa-lokayukta etc. before it. Thus, it cannot be said that the entrustment order was issued without application of mind. The Judgment of the Division Bench in DR.K.LALITHA 's case (referred supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts as in that case the Upa-lokayukta did not consider the reply submitted by the delinquent Government official and that the Government did not look into any material before entrusting the enquiry.

¶40

In addition to the above, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA 's case (referred Supra), the Courts exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should refrain from setting at naught a departmental enquiry unless the

¶41

¶42

charges are vague or is issued by an incompetent enquiry or if the charges are so incongruous that it belies ordinary common sense. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a delinquent, save in the above cases, would not have a firm cause of action to challenge it before a Court of law. In the present case, we do not see any circumstance that could compel us to exercise jurisdiction to halt the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

¶43

In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

NR/-

Devaraj.Y v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devaraj.Y v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Smart Infosoft and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Shri. Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Nagappa

The Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-4 Vs M/S Microchip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Bhoruka Power Corporation Ltd.