Dismissed

Sri B Sharanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2021WP/54596/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru examined a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Lokayukta to investigate allegations under the NREG Act and Scheme. Relying on a previous Division Bench decision holding the Lokayukta competent to investigate such matters, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Sri B Sharanappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.54596 OF 2017(S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI B SHARANAPPA S/O C BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER, PANCHAYATHRAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, MOLAKALMURU,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT R/AT HARSHA NILAYA, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA, NH-13, CHITRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-570 012

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RERPESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-570 012

¶15

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-570 012

¶17

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-7 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI: A.C. BALARAJ, AGA FOR R1; SRI: V.S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI: N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE ORDER DATED: 12.07.2017 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, IN APPLICATION NO.2420/2017 VIDE ANNX-A AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.2420/2017 whereby the application filed by the applicant / petitioner has been rejected in limine.

¶26

2(i) The petitioner claims that he was initially appointed on daily wage basis and subsequently his services were regularized on 06.07.1989. While working as Junior Engineer in Medehally Grama Panchayath on 25.04.2007, a complaint was filed by one Sri.M.Ravi Shankar alleging irregularities in execution of the works under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme 2007, on the basis of which, respondent No.4 investigated the matter entrusting it to the Chief Engineer of Technical Department of Lokayukta and report was submitted holding that there was an excess payment of Rs.5,18,854/-. It is submitted that a

¶27

¶28

complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Chitradurga relating to the alleged irregularities stated to have been committed by the petitioner while working as Junior Engineer at Medehally Grama Panchayath on 25.04.2007. The third respondent passed a resolution on the basis of the opinion expressed by the complainant and proceeded to recover a sum of Rs.2,59,427/from the salary of the petitioner. Subsequently, the entire amount of Rs.2,59,427/- was recovered from the salary of the petitioner.

¶29

2(ii) Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by filing an application No.8669/2015. The said application came to be disposed of on 08.03.2019 holding that the Disciplinary Authority would be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,59,427/- from the applicant / petitioner in terms of Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules after holding a detailed departmental enquiry. Till such time, the amount of Rs.2,59,427/- already recovered from the

¶30

¶31

applicant / petitioner will have to be returned without any interest. Further it was observed that holding of departmental enquiry is subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition No.54596/2017 i.e., the present writ petition.

¶32

2(iii) The said order dated 08.03.2019 passed in Application No.8669/2015 has been challenged by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein namely, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Chitradurga and the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Chitradurga, in W.P.No.25220/2019 which came to be disposed of on 02.01.2020, quashing the order dated 08.03.2019 passed in Application No.8669/2015. However, it has been observed that any decision that would be taken in W.P.No.54596/2017 i.e., the present writ petition is with reference to the findings rendered in Application No.2420/2017 which was filed specifically challenging the right of Karnataka Lokayukta conducting investigation under section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act will be dealt with separately.

¶33

¶34

2(iv) In Application No.2420/2017, the petitioner has challenged the correctness and validity of entrustment of the enquiry under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 (“Rules” for short) to the fourth respondent and article of charges issued by the fifth respondent on the ground that the investigation conducted by the fourth respondent is hit by section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 in view of specific bar for respondent No.4 to investigate the matter, inter alia challenging the procedures while exercising the power under section 12(4) of the Act. The Tribunal has clubbed the said application along with identical applications and has passed a common judgment dated 12.07.2017 rejecting the application, negating the contentions urged by the petitioner.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioner referring to the

¶36

order of the Division Bench of this Court at Kalaburagi Bench in the case of Sri SHRISHALI MUCHANDI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in W.P.No.200745/2018 disposed of

¶37

¶38

on 21.09.2020, submitted that the challenge made to the competency of Lokayukta to investigate into the complaint under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (“NREG Act” for short) and Scheme is held to be valid. In view of the said decision, the challenge made to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta herein does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, keeping open the rights and contentions of the petitioner relating to the other issues, the writ petition requires to be disposed of.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 would submit that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench Decision of this Court referred to supra, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed negating the contentions urged by the petitioner.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the issue involved herein inasmuch as the

¶41

¶42

jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to investigate the complaints filed with respect to National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and Scheme is no more res integra. It has been categorically held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.200745/2018, supra, that the Lokayukta has the competency to investigate into the complaints filed under the NREG Act. We have no reasons to differ from the same and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Bss.

Sri B Sharanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B Sharanappa v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishanth N R Vs Jagadish B R

Shri. C. N. Kumar Vs the Branch Manager

Rajashekhar J.K Vs Dheeraj Kumar

Sri Mahadevu C M Vs the Manager

Iliyas. M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs the Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd.