Dismissed

Sri. Sudheer P Banare v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2024WP/1375/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Executive Engineer challenged entrustment of disciplinary proceedings to the Lokayukta by the Housing Board Commissioner under Rule 14-A CCA Rules as without jurisdiction. Relying on Division Bench precedents holding the Commissioner competent, the court dismissed the petition and directed expedition of the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondent No.4/enquiry officer directed to expedite the enquiry and decide it in accordance with law.

Sri. Sudheer P Banare Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7348 WP No. 1375 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2021 (S-DE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SUDHEER P. BANARE, S/O PADMANABH N SHETTI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K. SATHISH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, by SUCHITRA M J VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶13

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:7348 WP No. 1375 of 2021

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-15, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,

¶17

M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ENTRUSTMENT DATED 27.08.2019 ANNEXURE-K AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED 30.09.2019 ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned order of entrustment dated 27.08.2019, vide Annexure-L, as well as the impugned Articles of charge dated 30.09.2019, vide Annexure-L.

¶24

The petitioner is assailing the entrustment order passed by respondent No.2/Commissioner of Karnataka Housing Board on the ground that respondent No.2/Commissioner has no authority to invoke Rule 14-A

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7348 WP No. 1375 of 2021

¶26

of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, (for short, 'CCA Rules'). The petitioner is questioning the order of entrustment to respondent No.2 on the ground that it is one without jurisdiction and the same is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

¶27

case of M.N.Jeevanna vs. State of Karnataka,

¶28

W.P.No.8267/2018 .

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has countered the petitioner's contention by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.S.Linge Gowda vs. State of Karnataka,W.P.No.36300/2017c/w W.P.No.47293/2016 . He has also brought to the notice of this Court that the Division Bench, placing reliance on the judgement rendered in R.F.Hudedavar vs. State of Karnataka,

¶30

reported in 2021 SCC Online Kar 15858:(2021) 6 Kant LJ

¶31

385 , has clearly held that the Commissioner of Housing Board, being an appointing and disciplinary authority, is

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:7348 WP No. 1375 of 2021

¶34

clothed with power and authority to invoke Rule 14-A of CCA Rules.

¶35

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

respondents. I have given my anxious consideration to the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Division Bench judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶37

It would be useful for this Court to cull out the

¶38

relevant paragraphs of the Division Bench judgment and the same reads as under:

¶39

"36. Subsequent to Gopal Hanumantha Kase's case referred to supra another coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment in R.F.Hudedavar's case referred to supra referring to Rule 3 of KL Rules clarified that for the purpose of Sections 2(4) and 12 of the KL Act, the Government may be the competent authority, however Rule 14-A of CCA Rules apply only to the Government servant and that does not cover public servant. It was further held that in such cases, the Government which was the competent authority for the purpose of KL Act has to forward the report to the Disciplinary Authority

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7348 WP No. 1375 of 2021

¶41

and the Disciplinary Authority on examining the records may either itself conduct disciplinary enquiry or decide to entrust the same to Lokayukta. The Government without any input from the immediate employer/competent authority cannot decide to entrust or entrust the matter to Lokayukta.

¶42

37. Since in R.F.Hudedavar's case interplay of rule 3 of KL Rules and Rule 14-A of CCA Rules and the object of interpretation of Rule 14-A of CCA Rules was considered in detail, the said case is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. Having regard to such position, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to other judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the respondents. Still only the contention of the petitioner in W.P.No.47293/2016 succeeds on the ground of competence of the entrustment order."

¶43

Having taken note of the law laid down by the Division Bench in two judgments, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has no authority to invoke Rule 14-A of CCA Rules cannot be acceded to. The Division Bench in the judgment cited supra has clearly held that respondent No.2, being an appointing authority as well as disciplinary authority, is vested with powers to make an entrustment in favour of respondent No.3/Lokayukta. The

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:7348 WP No. 1375 of 2021

¶45

contention of the petitioner that it is only the State of Karnataka which has jurisdiction to invoke Rule 14-A cannot be acceded to in the light of law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of R.F.Hudedavar , cited supra, fallowed by the Division Bench in the case of K.S.Linge Gowda , cited supra.

¶46