Dismissed

Sri B M Chandrashekaraiah v. Karnataka Power Transmission

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2024WP/34677/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the entrustment of a disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta by his employer. The court, relying on coordinate benches, rejected the challenge to the Director's competency and found sufficient application of mind in the order. Enquiry directed to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Pending applications disposed off. Respondents directed to expedite enquiry within three months.

Sri B M Chandrashekaraiah Vs Karnataka Power Transmission — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35000 WP No. 34677 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34677 OF 2014 (S-DE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. B.M. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O. LATE C.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELEC). TL AND SS DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPOARTION LTD., KOLAR-563101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SATISH. K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009.

¶12

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

¶13

THE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,

¶14

CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009.

¶15

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

¶16

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-3 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. N.G.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35000 WP No. 34677 of 2014

¶20

SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.05.2013 BEARING NO.KaVIPraNiNi/B21/23517/2011-12 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AS WELL AS ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED 09.07.2013 BEARING NO.LOK/INQ/14-A/255/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B).

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.KaViPraNiNi/B21/23517/2011-12 dated 31.05.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 entrusting the enquiry to the respondent No.3 under Rule 14(A)(1) of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees, (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987.

¶25

The petitioner while in service at the respondent No.2, was accused of demanding illegal gratification. The respondent No.3 had handed over a voice recorder and button camera to complainant to test his veracity and to ascertain the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35000 WP No. 34677 of 2014

¶27

nature of demand. The complainant recorded the demand of the petitioner and thereafter lodged a complaint against him on 22.07.2011. Following this, Lokayukta Police registered First Information Report in Cr.No.20/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 22.07.2011.

¶28

The Lokayukta police laid a trap which was successful. The trap mahazar was drawn, following which, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. The respondent No.3 submitted a report to the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayutka Act, 1984 recommending initiation of disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid incident. Based on the documents placed before it, and the recommendations, the State Government directed the respondent No.1 to initiate an enquiry and hand it over to the respondent No.3 on 31.05.2013. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the entrustment of the enquiry by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 on two grounds namely: (i) that respondent No.2 was not competent to entrust the enquiry; (ii) that there was no application of mind by the respondent No.2

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:35000 WP No. 34677 of 2014

¶31

before entrusting the enquiry to the respondent No.3 as required under Rule 12(4) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the question regarding competency of respondent No.2 to entrust the enquiry to respondent No.3 is fully covered by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2899/2021 and other connected petitions. He however contends that the respondent No.2 did not independently apply its mind to the documents placed before it, before deciding to conduct enquiry and handing it over to respondent No.3. He invited the attention of the Court to the order passed by the respondent No.2 to entrust the enquiry to respondent No.3 and contended that respondent No.2 entrusted the enquiry to the respondent No.3 on the request made by respondent No.3. He therefore contends that there was no application of mind by the respondent No.2 and that the respondent No.2 had succumbed to abdicated the dictate of the reasoning to the respondent No.3 and therefore the order of entrustment is illegal and deserves to be set at naught.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:35000 WP No. 34677 of 2014

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand, submitted that the Director of respondent No.2 is competent to decide upon the need to conduct the enquiry and to entrust it to respondent No.3. He submitted that in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2899/2021 and another judgment of this Court in W.P.No.205398/2019 also dealt with the same questions and held that the respondent No.2 is competent. Therefore, he contends that the question raised by the petitioner regarding competence of the respondent No.2 is no longer res-integra. In so far as the contention that there was no application of mind by the respondent No.2, before entrusting enquiry to the respondent No.3, he invited the attention of the Court to the order of entrustment and contends that the respondent No.2 had carefully considered the material on record and had rightly come to the conclusion that there was a need to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner and that it was prudent to hand over the enquiry to respondent No.3, as it was not in custody of all the materials relating to the incident.

¶36

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2

¶37

reiterated the above contention.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:35000 WP No. 34677 of 2014

¶40

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶41

In view of the fact that Coordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.No.2899/2021 and W.P.No.205398/2019 had held that the respondent No.2 is competent to conduct and entrust the enquiry to the respondent No.3, this question is answered on the same lines as is done in W.P.No.2899/2021 and W.P.No.205398/2019. In so far as the contention that there was no application of mind by respondent No.2, to the report submitted by the respondent No.3 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 before concluding that an enquiry, is warranted against the petitioner, the portion of the entrustment order extracted below would establish that the respondent No.2 had indeed applied its mind:

¶42

" ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢, CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢, ¥ÁæAiÉÆÃVPÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ, ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ, mÁæöå¥ï ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ, DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ, ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀÄgÁªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æÃ ©.JA.ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀAiÀÄå, PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («) gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞzÀ ®AZÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÁV PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆÃ¦ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DzÉÃ²¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:35000 WP No. 34677 of 2014

¶45

CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀ»¸À®Ä wªÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CzÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ."

¶46

In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the respondent No.2 had not applied its mind before concluding that a disciplinary enquiry was warranted against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

¶47

In view of the disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications stands disposed off.

¶48

Since the enquiry is already entrusted to respondent No.4, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to expedite the enquiry which shall not be later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri B M Chandrashekaraiah v. Karnataka Power Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B M Chandrashekaraiah v. Karnataka Power Transmission

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

K. S. Premakumari Vs Karnataka State Co-Operative Marketing Mahamandal Ltd.

Smt Sameena Yasmin Vs the Accountant General (a and E)

Dr. Mamatha. B. S. Vs State of Karnataka

B Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Krishna Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Nayazulla Vs the Hassan District Central