Dismissed

Sri T N Chikkarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024WP/1897/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer, challenged the Tribunal's order entrusting a disciplinary enquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta regarding corruption allegations involving single tender approvals. The Court rejected contentions about want of application of mind, noting the Government applied its mind to the report and that technical or merit-based challenges were not ground for interference

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sri T N Chikkarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1897 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. T.N. CHIKKARAYAPPA S/O LATE S. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED AS CHIEF ENGINEER RESIDING AT NO.546 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK DOLLARS COLONY, R.M.V. II STAGE BENGALURU-560 094

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(By SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W. SRI. SATHISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

2 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

3 . THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-4

¶15

¶16

¶17

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE NOT YET ORDERED IN R/O R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.6219/2022 (ANNEXURE-A), (b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.6219/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No.6219/2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AS SOUGHT FOR (ANNEXURE-B), AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.08.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶23

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

CAV JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 in Application No.6219/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short).

¶27

¶28

¶29

The petitioner herein was the applicant before the Tribunal. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) through direct recruitment as Probationary Engineer in the year 1992 in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer and he was placed in the post of Chief Engineer under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "KCSR" for short), vide order dated 14.05.2007.

¶30

It is submitted that complaints dated 04.08.2015 were lodged vide Annexures-A1 and A2 by one Sri R.B. Basavegowda against the petitioner to the second respondent alleging that the petitioner, while working as Chief Engineer was involved in the corrupt practice of approving tenders higher than the actual rates. After lapse of more than three years, the second respondent issued observation note vide Annexure-A3 dated 19.05.2018 seeking reply from the petitioner in respect of the said complaints. Thereafter, the second respondent submitted a

¶31

¶32

¶33

report vide Annexure-A4 dated 18.09.2018 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, stating that the petitioner has prima facie committed misconduct and recommended disciplinary action.

¶34

The first respondent vide Annexure-A6 dated 12.03.2021 permitted the second respondent to frame articles of charge and conduct an enquiry invoking Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. Thereafter, the third respondent issued articles of charge against the petitioner vide Annexure-A7 dated 23.03.2021 alleging that he has colluded with three contractors accepting their sole tenders in respect of three road works, due to the which the State has incurred financial loss of Rs.2,43,80,672/- and thereby committed misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Being aggrieved by the entrustment order and charge memo, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. It was contended that the proceedings were hopelessly belated and that the acceptance of the recommendation by the Government

¶35

¶36

¶37

without considering the opinion of the Public Works Department was totally illegal.

¶38

The first respondent filed a statement of objection

¶39

contending that the Government in D.P.A.R., has examined the report with supporting documents which prima facie shows that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct and therefore decided to entrust the matter to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CC&A) Rules.

¶40

The second and third respondents have also filed their statement of objections contending that misconduct on part of the petitioner seriously affects the State Administration and also the rights of the members of the public and requested the Tribunal to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner.

¶41

Having considered the contentions advanced, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶42

¶43

¶44

We have heard the learned senior counsel

¶45

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶46

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the decision to accept the report and to proceed with the enquiry is vitiated by total want of application of mind. It is submitted that though Annexure - A5 notes, specifically states that there was no illegality committed by the petitioner, the same has not been

¶47

accepted by the Government. It is further contended that the observation note has been issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries and not the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta which totally vitiates the proceedings. Further, it is contended that Sections 14, 15, 18, 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "KTPP Act" for short) which protect all action taken thereunder have not been considered by the Tribunal.

¶48

¶49

¶50

The learned senior counsel appearing for the

¶51

petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

¶52

Shri Basavaraj and another v . The State of Karnataka and another in W.P.No. 100553/2021 (S-KAT) and connected matters.

¶53

Shri N Mahesh Babu v. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No. 147900/2020 (S-KAT)

¶54

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that there are serious irregularities in the initiation of the proceedings. It is contended, relying on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of

¶55

this Court in the case of Shri. Basavaraj and another v. The State of Karnataka and another in W.P.No.100553/2021 (S-KAT) , that the observation note is to be issued by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta as the case may be and that since in the instant case, the same was issued by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries, the action

¶56

was bad in law. Further, it is submitted that there is no application of mind by the Government as is required under

¶57

¶58

¶59

Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and that the matter stated in Annexure-A5 communication has not been considered. Further, it is contended that the provisions of Sections 18, 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 have not been considered by the respondents.

¶60

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits that the contentions referable to the KTPP Act and Section 12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 were never raised before the Tribunal. Further, it is contended that Annexure - A5 has been specifically referred to by the Government in Annexure - A6 and that it is not binding on the Government. It is argued that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, who was working as Chief Engineer, Public Works Department was that he had accepted single tender for three large works in a corrupt manner causing huge loss to the exchequer.

¶61

Having considered the contentions advanced, it is

¶62

clear to us that the Government has applied its mind to the

¶63

¶64

¶65

report of the Lokayukta as well as the note forwarded by the PWD and has come to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner requires to be enquired into by conduct of a disciplinary enquiry. In view of the fact that Annexure - A5 is also specifically referred to, we are not inclined to accept the contention that Annexure - A6 is vitiated for want of application of mind. Further, immunity granted by the provisions of KTPP Act protect only actions taken in good faith and cannot be urged to protect actions of officers which are sought to be enquired into on allegations of corruption. The ground raised before the Tribunal relatable to delay in initiation of proceedings have also been specifically considered by the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that it is not in every case that delay vitiates the initiation of enquiry does not warrant interference. The ground of the observation note being forwarded by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries was never urged before the Tribunal. Moreover, the observation note was not under challenge before the Tribunal.

¶66

¶67

¶68

We notice that apart from urging technical contentions against the order of entrustment and the articles of charge, there are no serious sustainable contentions raised by the petitioner on merits of the matter. Though it is contended that it was with the prior sanction of the Government that the single bids had been accepted by the petitioner, there is absolutely nothing produced before the Tribunal in support of such contentions. Such contentions on the facts of the matter are required to be considered in the disciplinary proceedings and not by the Tribunal considering a challenge to an order of entrustment or to articles of charge.

¶69

What we are called upon to consider is the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Tribunal on the application preferred by the petitioner. The grounds raised in the application have been specifically answered by the Tribunal. The further grounds which are raised before us today do not find place in the pleadings before the Tribunal or even for that matter, in the writ petition filed before this Court. The respondents, therefore, have had no opportunity

¶70

¶71

¶72

to meet the said contentions. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that those contentions which go to the merits of the proceedings as against the petitioner are liable to be considered at the time of the proceedings in the enquiry.

¶73

In the above factual circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no sustainable ground raised by the petitioner for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶74

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶75

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶76

cp*

Sri T N Chikkarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T N Chikkarayappa 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

Sri Vinod Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chalapathi. T. Vs the Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Sri. Ravi S Suran, Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Vivekananda C M

Ms Manjushree K Vs State of Karnataka

Harshvardhan Raj M S Vs the Deputy Commissioner