Allowed

Sri Shivappa Kuri v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023WP/14735/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a chargesheet filed against a petitioner for failure to collect documents in a procurement case. Ruled that proceedings based on this subsidiary allegation were illegal because the investigation by the Lokayukta had exonerated the petitioner of the principal allegations regarding foodgrain shortfall and fund misuse. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The chargesheet relating to the petitioner under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits.

Sri Shivappa Kuri Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 14735 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SHIVAPPA KURI S/O BHEEMAPPA KURI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS PURCHASE OFFICER, CUM GODOWN MANAGER, KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD DAVANAGERE.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. J.M.JAYADEVAIAH FOR SRI. M.V.VEDA MURTHY., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., NO.16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶16

VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560052.

¶17

THE KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, DISTRICT OFFICE, BALLARY-583101. REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER.

¶18

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI.C.N.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4; SRI.VENKATESH.S.ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 15.03.2011 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A, TO THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER ONLY, ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The State Government by, an order dated 15.03.2011, entrusted the investigation of foodgrains under Section 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the 1984 Act ’, for brevity) against the petitioner and six others.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶26

2. The reason for the Government to entrust the matter

¶27

to Lokayukta has been reflected in the preamble of the

¶28

order, which reads as follows-

¶29

“¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ ¤UÀªÀÄªÀÅ 2008-09£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è §¼Áîj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ°è £Á®ÄÌ RjÃ¢ PÉÃAzÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.3.2009gÀ CAvÀåPÉÌ MlÄÖ 527310.54QéAmÁ¯ï ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼ÀPÉÌ PÀ¤µÀ× ¨É¯É ¤ÃrzÀ RZÀÄð ºÁPÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀgÉ, 35952.97 QÀÖAmÁ¯ï ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼À ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨sËwPÀªÁV ®¨sÀå«®èzÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ ¯ÉPÀÌ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F jÃw RjÃ¢, RZÀÄð ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ®¨sÀå«®èzÉ EgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÁAvÀgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛæzÀ «ªÀgÀ RjÃ¢ PÉÃAzÀæªÁgÀÄ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ EzÉ;

¶30

PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå	ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼À ¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ RjÃ¢ PÉÃAzÀæ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ	¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀjªÀiÁt	©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ zÁ¸ÁÛ¤£À ¥ÀjªÀiÁt	PÉÆgÀvÉ	zÁ¸ÁÛ¤£À ªÀiË®å (gÀÆ.UÀ¼À°è) ¥Àæw QéAmÁ¯ïUÉ gÀÆ.840.00
01	§¼Áîj- ²æÃ J¸ï.¥ÁAqÀÄgÀAUÀ	295416.24	266151.89	29264.35	24582054.00
02	PÉÆlÆÖgÀÄ- ²æÃ f. £ÁVgÉrØ	54023.00	50721.01	3301.99	2773671.60
03	ºÀqÀUÀ°-²æÃ ²ªÀ¥ÀàPÀÄj	38007.25	37245.43	761.82	639928.80
04	ºÀUÀj¨ÉÆªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î- ²æÃ.J¸ï.PÉ.²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À gÉrØ	129237.80	126612.99	2624.81	2204840.40
	MlÄÖ	516684.29	480731.32	35952.97	30200494.80

¶31

¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 35952.97QéAmÁ¯ï ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß RjÃ¢

¶32

ªÀiÁqÀzÉAiÉÄ gÀÆ.30200494.80/-£ÀÄß

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶35

zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶36

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀAvÉ, ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå (2)gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.12.2010gÀAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ DºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÀjPÀ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ 258£ÉÃ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAq À ½AiÀÄ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è §¼Áîj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼ÀzÀ RjÃ¢AiÀÄ £É¥ÀzÀ°è ºÀtzÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ §UÉÎ ZÀað¹ vÉUÀzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀ°è zÉÆqÀØ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ §¼Áîj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ/ ¹§âA¢ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀAa¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀµÀªÁV ¥ÀÆtð vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ gÁdå ¯ÉÆÃPÀAiÀÄÄPÀÛPÉÌ ªÀ»¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶37

As could be seen from the above, the matter was referred to the Lokayukta to investigate the shortfall of foodgrains i.e., maize in various godowns in respect of petitioner, who was working as a Purchase Officer, the shortfall was stated to be 761.82 quintals as per the enquiry report. The Lokayukta, who undertook the investigation under Section 7(2A) of 1984 Act, has come to the conclusion that there was no shortage of foodgrains

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶39

and there was no mis-use of funds as against the petitioner. The finding recorded by the Lokayukta as against the petitioner which reads as follows-

¶40

“7.03 C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ:- JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ «ªÀgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ 38,002-90 QéAmÁ¯ï RjÃ¢¹ zÁ¸ÁÛ¤UÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F jÃw RjÃ¢¹zÀ ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÆ«£ÀºÀqÀUÀ° ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉÆ¸À¥ÉÃmÉ gÁdå GUÁæt ¤ªÀÄzÀªÀjUÉ PÀæªÀÄªÁV 30,58905 PÀéAmÁ¯ï ºÁUÀÆ 7,418-20 (30,589-05+7,41820=38,007-25) QéAmÁ¯ï ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶41

7.04. ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.03.2011gÀ ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj RjÃ¢

¶42

PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è RjÃ¢ C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹zÀÝ. ²æÃ ²ªÀ¥ÀàPÀÄj, RjÃ¢ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼À 38,007.25 QéAmÁ¯ï ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ 37,245.43 QéAmÁ¯ï ¥ÀæªÀiÁtªÀ£ÀÄß

¶43

ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹, PÉÆgÀvÉ PÀAqÀÄ§AzÀ 761.82 QéAmÁ¯ï£À ªÉÆ§®UÀÄ gÀÆ,6,39,928-80UÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÀiÁtªÀÅ ¨sËwPÀªÁV ®¨sÀå«®èzÉ RjÃ¢¹zÀAvÉ ¯ÉPÀÌ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è vÉÆÃj¸À¯ÁVzÉ JA§ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt,

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶46

vÀ¤SÉUÉ MzÀV¸À¯ÁzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ°£À zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ¬ÄAzÁzÀ ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.”

¶47

Despite the fact that the principal allegation of the

¶48

shortfall of foodgrains and misuse of monies were not established, nevertheless, a chargesheet has been issued against the petitioner on the ground that he had not collected certain documents while purchasing maize.

¶49

The petitioner, being aggrieved by this particular initiation of departmental proceedings, is before this Court.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the principal allegation was shortage of maize and mis-use of funds, and when this allegation was not established against the petitioner after investigation by the Lokayukta, the petitioner cannot be proceeded on the departmental side for a subsidiary and insignificant allegation that he had not collected certain documents while purchasing maize. It is contended that only if the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶53

main allegation of a shortfall in the foodgrains or mis-use of funds were established, this particular charge would be relevant. It is, therefore, contended that since the Lokayukta had clearly exonerated the petitioner for many wrongdoing in the matter of procurement and in the matter of disposal of the foodgrains, and found that there was no shortfall, the initiation of proceedings were illegal.

¶54

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 5 has filed statement of objections.

¶55

Learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate, however, sought to place reliance on the third charge which was referred to in the investigation report of the Lokayukta to contend that this charge had been established and hence, an enquiry was necessary. Charge No.3 which is referred to in the investigation report reads as follows-

¶56

“3. ºÀqÀUÀ° RjÃ¢ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è gÉÊvÀjAzÀ

¶57

ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß RjÃ¢¸ÀÄªÁUÀ PÀqÁØAiÀÄªÁV ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ gÉÊvÀjAzÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¥ÀºÀtÂ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀmÁÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶59

¶60

¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ gÉÊvÀjAzÀ ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÁUÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀmÁÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è/zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À°è ®¨sÀå«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ, ¢£ÀªÀ» ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è zÁR°¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¢£ÀªÀ» ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄªÀ ªÉÄPÉÌeÉÆÃ¼ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¥ÀºÀtÂ CxÀªÁ UÉæöÊ£ï ªÉÇÃZÀgïUÀ¼ÀÄ E®èzÀAvÀºÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-31 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. EzÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-112008gÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯ÉAiÀÄ°è£À ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆa PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå(3)gÀ°è£À ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ¸Àj¸ÀzÉÃ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”

¶61

It is to be stated here that, it is only if the allegation of a shortfall in the maize or some irregularity in the procurement is established against the petitioner, can this allegation that he had not collected relevant documents, would become necessary to be investigated.

¶62

In my view, since the principal allegation of the shortfall or misuse of funds in the procurement has not been established against the petitioner, the chargesheet, that is filed pursuant to report under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act against the petitioner, cannot be sustained.

¶63

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44367 WP No. 14735 of 2018

¶64

Consequently, the chargesheet, insofar as it relates to charge No.10 that is read against the petitioner shall stand quashed .

¶65

It is, however, made clear that the chargesheet as against the other delinquents are not, in any way, interfered with and the authorities are at liberty to proceed against the delinquents in accordance with law.

¶66

As a result of this order, the petitioner is entitled to

¶67

all consequential benefits that would arise and the same shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶68

Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed .

¶69

HNM

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri Shivappa Kuri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivappa Kuri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Salma Shaziya Vs Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences

Sri. Lakshmi Pathy H Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Anup P., Vs Union of India

Sri G S Venkatesh Vs the Member Secretary Pca and Rd Bank Employees

Smt Kavitha K R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Kalingaiah, Vs the State of Karnataka