A retired officer challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated on a Lokayukta Section 12(3) report over alleged illegal release of KIADB compensation. The High Court found the report and entrustment order showed application of mind and upheld the Tribunal's refusal to quash, leaving contentions open for the enquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:41806-DB WP No. 10874 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10874 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.S. RAMAKRISHNA S/O SANNA CHALUVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT STATE REPRESENTATIVE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL R/AT D-107, ROYAL AVENUE APARTMENTS KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU-560 085
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:41806-DB WP No. 10874 of 2021
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.07.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.648/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE R1 AT ANNEXURE-10 AND THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES DATED 3.11.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A11 ISSUED BY THE R3 AND BY DECLARING THAT THE REPORT DATED 23.05.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A6 ISSUED BY THE R2 AS ILLEGAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 of
the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 15.07.2019 in Application No.648/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal') rejecting his prayer to quash Annexure-A10/Entrustment Order dated 01.10.2016 passed under Rule 14-A of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957; Articles of Charge dated 03/19.11.2016 (Annexure-A11) as well as Annexure-A6/Report dated 23.05.2015 submitted under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (in short 'the Act').
NC: 2024:KHC:41806-DB WP No. 10874 of 2021
such compensation. Further learned counsel would submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted Section 12(3) report without looking into the contentions of the petitioner and the Tribunal also failed to take note of the said contentions.
contend that the observation note was issued to the petitioner in the year 2011 and immediately thereafter, he submitted his reply, but there is delay in forwarding the
same to the Government, in that, in the year 2016, Section 12(3) report is submitted which has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
objections and material placed on record by the petitioner and thereafter, recommended for appropriate action against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that, whether the petitioner is responsible for disbursement of compensation to the persons who are not entitled to receive compensation is a matter for enquiry and at this stage, it cannot be gone into. Learned counsel would further submit that as there is no interim order, the enquiry is proceeded with and the enquiry is at the stage of petitioner's evidence i.e., DGO. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Sri H.K.Kenchegowda for respondent No.1 would support
the submission of the learned counsel Sri Arabatti and further he submits that, the Government, on appreciation of the entire material forwarded along with Section 12(3) report passed order entrusting the enquiry to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the view that, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the allegations are serious which requires enquiry and it is also further observed that the petitioner would get opportunity during the course of the enquiry to produce documents and to defend himself.
under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act indicates application of mind by the authorities. The report indicates the consideration of complaint against the petitioner and the reply submitted by the petitioner. On examination of the complaint and reply submitted by the petitioner, the authorities have come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and requires action
against the petitioner in terms of KCS(CCA) Rules, 1957. We do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that there is non application of mind while submitting report under Section 12(3) of the Act.
Moreover, petitioner has failed to point out what material is not considered.
submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order of entrustment indicates the consideration of material submitted along with report submitted under Section 12(3) of 1984 Act. While passing entrustment order, the State Government need not assign detailed reason but it must indicate application of mind, which would suffice the purpose.
of enquiry, the petitioner would get opportunity to defend
NC: 2024:KHC:41806-DB WP No. 10874 of 2021
himself by producing the documents and also by producing the oral evidence. In that circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE
PSJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Upalokayukta's Section 12(3) report and the Government's entrustment order under Rule 14-A suffered from non-application of mind.
Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's rejection of his quashing application should be allowed.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
H.S. Ramakrishna
The State of Karnataka Department of Personnel and Administrative Services (DPAR)
The Karnataka Lokayukta
The Additional Registrar (Enquiry-1), Karnataka Lokayukta
S.G.Pandit
Ramachandra D. Huddar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
