Disposed

B.G.Arasaraju v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/22830/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Executive Engineer challenged entrustment of his disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta on the ground it was made by a delegatee, not the Board, and cited his criminal acquittal. The Court held he could not question entrustment after participating in the concluded enquiry and directed him to urge contentions in reply to the show cause notice.

What the court decided

AI extract

B.G.Arasaraju Vs the Managing Director — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39545 WP No. 22830 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22830 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

B.G.ARASARAJU S/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TLM SUB DIVISION, HUUDY, 220-KV STATION TL AND SS DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560003.

¶10

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DIRECTOR (ADMN) KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560003.

¶12

THE OFFICE OF LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REPTD BY REGISTRAR.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 (VK NOT FILED; SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 VK NOT FILED)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTRUSTMENT

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:39545 WP No. 22830 of 2024

¶18

ORDER DTD 20.03.2014 BEING PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNX-B AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING BEING TAKEN PLACE BY QUASHING THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES BEARING ENQUIRY NO.NO.LIK/INDQ/14-A/285/2024 DTD 29.03.2016 VIDE ANNX-C BEING CONDUCTED BEFORE THE R3 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.03.2014 bearing No.PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©21/32337/2012-13 passed by respondent

¶23

No.2 entrusting a disciplinary enquiry to respondent No.3 under Regulation 14-A of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987(henceforth referred as "Regulations, 1987").

¶24

The petitioner contends that while he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer at Nelamangala Sub-Division, a false trap was laid and a case was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An enquiry under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39545 WP No. 22830 of 2024

¶26

was thereafter conducted by Upa Lokayukta and a report under

¶27

Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, was placed before respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 as a delegatee, exercised power under Rule 14-A of the Regulations, 1987 and entrusted the enquiry to the Lokayukta. Thereafter, respondent No.3 was nominated to conduct the enquiry. It is contended that the enquiry is now completed and the same is placed before respondent No.1 for passing appropriate orders. The petitioner contends that entrustment of the enquiry by respondent No.2 was unauthorized as under the Regulations 1987, it is the Board which is empowered to pass an order of penalty and therefore it is the Board alone, which had to entrust the enquiry to the Lokayukta.

¶28

It is also contended that in similar matters, where certain departments of the State which had not adopted the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, this Court has consistently held that the entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta is improper and had quashed such enquiries. It is therefore contended that impugned order entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta warrants interference.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:39545 WP No. 22830 of 2024

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and contended that the impugned order of entrustment is not passed by the Board, but is passed by respondent No.2 in his individual capacity and therefore, the entrustment to the Lokayukta and consequent enquiry conducted is bad in law and the same requires to be quashed. It is also contended that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case and the same was brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer, who never considered it.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that the question raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is no longer res integra, in view of same being answered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2899/2021 and W.P.No.203068/2019. He contends that the Enquiry Officer has already concluded the enquiry and submitted a report before respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of entrustment after having participated in the enquiry. He further contends that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case will be of no consequence, as respondent No.1 is now seized of the enquiry report and is entitled to independently apply his mind to the facts and

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:39545 WP No. 22830 of 2024

¶35

evidence collected during the enquiry. Therefore, he contends that the contentions urged by the petitioner in this writ petition do not merit consideration and prays this petition be dismissed.

¶36

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the enquiry undertaken by respondent No.3 is now concluded and a report of the Enquiry Officer is placed before respondent No.1 for consideration in accordance with law. The petitioner having participated in the enquiry, cannot now raise a contention that the entrustment of the enquiry itself was defective.

¶38

Be that as it may, the contention of the petitioner that the entrustment of the enquiry must have been by respondent No.1 and not by respondent No.2, do not merit consideration in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the writ petitions referred supra .

¶39

However, as respondent No.1 is bound to consider of the enquiry report, the contentions urged by the petitioner may be urged in the reply to the second show cause notice that is

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:39545 WP No. 22830 of 2024

¶41

¶42

already issued to the petitioner. If such contention is raised, respondent No.1 shall consider the same in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.203068/2019 and W.P.No.2899/2021.

¶43

Writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms.

¶44

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

B.G.Arasaraju v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B.G.Arasaraju v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S.N. Shekar Vs the Managing Director

Somashekaraiah Vs the Executive Engineer(Elec)

Smt. Srilakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Tummala Premakumar Vs the Board of Directors

H S Madhumathi Vs State of Karnataka

Ibrahim Vs State of Karnataka