Allowed

Mr Govindraju B R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/22375/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka quashed a preliminary scrutiny note by the Karnataka Lokayukta. The Court held that the Directorate of ESI Medical Services is under State Government control via a 1960 agreement, amending the view that it was a Central Body, and restored the file for investigation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned preliminary scrutiny note dated 02.09.2023 is quashed. The file is restored to the Board of the Karnataka Lokayukta for disposal with notice to parties.

Mr Govindraju B R Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 22375 OF 2023 (GM-KLA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR GOVINDRAJU B R AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE ARCHIKA RAMANNA BORASANDRA VILLAGE TARIKERE POST, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - PIN-572130.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. S K BASAVARAJ - ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

MR B G SHIVANANDA REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL NO.514/E, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS ROAD 2^ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA CLUB ROAD VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560104.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶19

DR D E NARAYANASWAMY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE SCHEME MEDICAL SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA S NIJALINGAPPA ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶20

MR J C VENKATESHAIAH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE SCHEME MEDICAL SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA S NIJALINGAPPA ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶21

MR G GIRISH OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE SCHEME MEDICAL SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA S NIJALINGAPPA ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY – AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY SCRUTINY NOTE DATED 02.09.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-1, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA IN Compt/LOK/BCD4640/2023/ARE-1 AT ANNEXURE-A; ii) CONSEQUENTLY PASS NECESSARY ORDERS TO RESTORE BACK THE FILE IN Compt/LOK/BCD-4640/2023/ARE-1 TO ITS BOARD BEFORE THE RESPONDENT No. 2; iii) CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶26

MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT No. 2 TO PROCEED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT No. 3 TO 6 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA ACT AND RULES MADE THEREUNDER AND ALSO UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned preliminary scrutiny note dated 02.09.2023 passed by the Additional Registrar Enquiries – 1, Karnataka Lokayukta i.e., Respondent No.2 in Compt/LOK/BCD-4640/2023/ARE-1 as per Annexure – A to this writ petition and consequently, to pass necessary orders to restore back the file in Compt/LOK/BCD4640/2023/ARE-1 to its board before the Respondent No.2. Petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to proceed against

¶30

the Respondent No.3 to 6 in accordance with the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act and Rules made there under and also under the Prevention of the Corruption Act.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶32

The facts that are apposite for consideration of the

¶33

petition as borne out from the pleadings are that, the Directorate, Employees State Insurance Scheme Medical Services has been rendering Medical Care Services to the insured persons from its State ESI Hospitals and Dispensaries. The said Directorate is under the absolute Administrative Control of the Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka. The officers and the staff of the said Directorate are appointed by the State Government in accordance with the Karnataka Employees State Insurance Scheme (Medical) Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2007. The Officers and the staff of the Directorate are governed by the Karnataka Civil Service Act and the Rules made there under. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 being the officers and employees of the Directorate very much fall within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka State Government.

¶34

Respondent No.3 is a Registrar of the Karnataka

¶35

State Pharmacy Council which is a Statutory Council established by the Karnataka State Government under the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶37

provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The State Council is the authority to regulate the profession and practice of the pharmacy in the State of Karnataka.

¶38

It is further averred in the petition that on 14.08.2023 the petitioner had filed a complaint before the respondent No.2 in Compt/LOK/BCD-4640/2023/ARE-1 against respondent Nos.3 to 6 under Section 9 [in Form –I & II] of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act alleging as under:

¶39

“ In order to obtain services of Pharmacist, Directorate of Employees State Insurance Scheme Medical Services has invited tender for supply of Pharmacist to the Employees State Insurance Scheme Medical Services from the outsourcing agencies. Thereafter M/s. Feature Planet Private Limited has been authorized to supply pharmacist to the Department of Employees State Insurance Scheme Medical Services. As per the Tender, agency should be able to supply 304 Nos. of Pharmacist, who are required to dispense the Medicines to the patients in the ESI Hospitals and Dispensaries. But on the other hand agency was not able to provide the required number of Pharmacist from the month of December 2022 and

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶41

for the reasons unregistered persons has been supplied to the ESI Hospitals and Dispensaries by the said agency. These unregistered persons have been dispensing the medicines to the ESI patients causing great risk to the health and life of the patients. It is pertinent to mention that dispensing by the unregistered persons as Pharmacist is an offence under Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.

¶42

The Administrative Officer of the Directorate has

¶43

issued an endorsement dated 02.09.2023 wherein the letter head of the said endorsement clearly discloses that the Directorate is a Department constituted under the Government of Karnataka. Further, it is averred that Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are very much amenable to the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 since respondent Nos.4 to 6 are the employees working under the Government of Karnataka and are also governed by the Karnataka Civil Service Act and Rules. Hence, respondent Nos.4 to 6 fall within the definition “Government Servant” as envisaged under Section 2(6) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶45

Further, Respondent No.3 is also amenable to the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2 as he falls within the definition “public servant” as envisaged under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Respondent No.2 vide its preliminary scrutiny dated 02.09.2023 without even examining the aforesaid aspects has erroneously closed the complaint holding that the allegations against respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the employees of Employees State Insurance Corporation and without any manner of investigation, though a categorical finding has been given at Para 4 of the preliminary scrutiny dated 02.09.2023 that “the relevant documents produced by the complainant goes to show that the complainant has made serious allegations against respondent No.1 to 4(therein).” Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned preliminary scrutiny note dated 02.09.2023 passed by the Additional Registrar Enquiries–1, Karnataka Lokayukta in Compt/LOK/BCD-4640/2023/ARE-1 at Annexure-A has preferred this writ petition.

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶47

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner so also learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned Spl.counsel Sri Venkatesh S.Arabatti for respondent No.2Karnataka Lokayukta.

¶48

It is the primary contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos.4 to 6 are very much amenable to the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 since respondent Nos.4 to 6 are the employees working under the Government of Karnataka and are also governed by the Karnataka Civil Service Act and Rules. Therefore, Respondent Nos.4 to 6 fall within the definition “Government Servant” as envisaged under Section 2(6) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.

¶49

He would further contend that respondent No.3 is also amenable to the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 as he falls within the definition “public servant” as envisaged under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. As such, the preliminary scrutiny note dated 02.09.2023

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶51

passed by the respondent No.2 is not sustainable both on law or on facts. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶52

Per contra, learned AGA has filed a memo along with document and she would fairly submit that the Employees State Insurance Scheme Medical Services comes under the control of State Government.

¶53

Learned Spl. Counsel Sri Venkatesh S.Arabatti for respondent No.2 would submit that in view of the memo filed by learned AGA dated 08.04.2024 along the document i.e. the Agreement between the Employees State Insurance Corporation and the State Government dated 01.06.1960 under Section 58(3) of the Employees

¶54

State Insurance Act, 1948, clause 14 of the said agreement is relevant and the same reads as under:

¶55

14 (1) For the purpose of administering medical benefit under this Agreement, the State Government shall set up, under their general supervision and control, a separate executive organization, in charge of a full-time or a part-

¶56

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶57

time officer who shall be appointed by the State Government, in consultation with the Corporation, on such terms and conditions as are agreed to between the State Government and the Corporation.

¶58

(2) The State Government shall appoint in the office of the officer to be appointed in terms of clause(1) above, such staff, as may be agreed upon.

¶59

By perusal of the above agreement and the provision it is clear that the Directorate of the ESI Medical Scheme comes under the control of State Government. As such, the findings of the second respondent that ESIC is a Body Corporate controlled by the Central Government is not sustainable under law and the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of second respondent. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari issued and the impugned preliminary scrutiny note dated 02.09.2023 passed by the Additional Registrar Enquiries – 1, Karnataka Lokayukta in

¶60

Compt/LOK/BCD-4640/2023/ARE-1 as per Annexure-A is quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:14426-DB WP No. 22375 of 2023

¶63

No.2 to consider the complaint of the petitioner in Compt/LOK/BCD-4640/2023/ARE-1 by giving opportunity to both the parties. Consequently, the file in Complaint No. Compt/LOK/BCD-4640/2023/ARE-1 is restored to its Board before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose the complaint at the earliest.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

DKB

Mr Govindraju B R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Govindraju B R 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H S Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rangamani. a Vs the State of Karnataka

A Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

M H Sudhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Ramesh Kumar P IFS Vs Union of India

Shri Vasantha H Vs the State of Karnataka