Dismissed

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Srinivas v

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/46893/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Lokayukta petitioned against the Administrative Tribunal's quashing of the Government's entrustment of disciplinary enquiries under Rule 14A KCS (CCA) Rules. Following a co-ordinate bench ruling that the Lokayukta was not aggrieved where only the State's action was faulted, this Court rejected the writ petition and directed action on the Section 12(3) report.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; court added that Government must take action under Section 12(4), failing which Lokayukta may act under Section 12(5) of the 1984 Act.

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Srinivas v — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 46893 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.46893 OF 2019 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRINIVAS.V, 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE. VENKATARAMU S, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUMKUR CITY CORPORATION, TUMKUR

¶15

RAJU.V.M., 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE. MOTAIAH, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, TUMKUR CITY CORPORATION, TUMKUR - 562102.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 46893 of 2019

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. M NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V.SESHU, HCGP FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NUMBER 1456/2017 AND APPLICATION NUMBER 1457/2017 DATED 06.12.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶23

and

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 46893 of 2019

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶28

The petitioner-Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 06.12.2018 in Application Nos.1456 & 1457/2017, by which the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal') allowed the applications of respondent Nos.1 and 2, quashing the entrustment order dated 10.2.2017 with liberty to the Government to pass appropriate order keeping in mind the observations made therein.

¶29

Though the matter is listed for orders, the same is

¶30

taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsels for the parties.

¶31

On the basis of the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the 1984 Act'), respondent No.3-State Government under Government Order dated 10.2.2017 (Annexure-A17) entrusted an enquiry against respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitionerLokayukta under Rule-14A of the Karnataka Civil Services

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 46893 of 2019

¶33

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'KCS (CCA) Rules'). The said Government Order is the subject matter of Application Nos.1456 & 1457/2017 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal only on the ground that there is non-application of mind, quashed the Government Order and remitted the matter to respondent No.3-Government to pass appropriate order keeping in mind the observations made therein. The said order is in question in this writ petition.

¶34

The Entrustment Order is passed by the State Government. The Tribunal has found that the State Government has not applied its mind while passing the impugned Entrustment Order under Rule-14A of the KCS (CCA) Rules. If the finding is against respondent No.3-Government, the petitioner-Lokayukta would have no jurisdiction to question the same. It is for the 3^rd respondent-Government to demonstrate application of mind while passing Entrustment Order. The petitioner cannot and it is not possible for the petitioner to demonstrate application of mind on the part of the 3^rd respondent-Government.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 46893 of 2019

¶37

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated

¶38

27.8.2024 in W.P.No.100733/2022 and connected matters, has categorically held as follows:

¶39

"3.1. Firstly, under the scheme of 1984 Act and 1957 Rules, role of the Government is much different from that of the Lokayukta. Where essentially the action of the Government such as entrustment of disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A, acceptance of enquiry report, awarding of punishment or rejection of enquiry report and eventual of non-levy of punishment having been found fault with, the Tribunal has quashed the proceedings and remanded the matters for consideration afresh. Therefore, Lokayukta as such is not an aggrieved party.

¶40

3.2. Secondly, Lokayukta is a statutory body created under the provisions of 1984 Act. It has power to conduct enqiry/investigation inter alia under the provisions of Sections 7, 8 & 12 of the said Act. If the Tribunal had faltered proceedings of the Lokayukta as such, consideration would have been much different. What has been in substance faltered by the Tribunal is essentially the action of the State Government and therefore it is only the entity which can be said to be the aggrieved party; Lokayukta cannot on its own espouse the cause of State Government, in the absence of statutory enablement. Of course in appropriate cases, the Lokayukta can also invoke the jurisdiction of Tribunal or of Writ Court is also true. However, the cases at hand are not of that nature.

¶41

3.3. We have not much examined the aspect of locus standii of Lokayukta in these matters, although both sides have made some submission in that regard. What the Tribunal has done is only an order of remand and therefore, there is no case of full stopping the disciplinary proceedings in question. Depending upon the outcome of the remand proceedings, the Lokayukta can structure its stand at an appropriate stage, but not now. We hasten to add that the issue of its locus standii is being examined in some other matters pending before us and we make it

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 46893 of 2019

¶43

clear that this order shall not preclude any grounds being urged in those matters, in this regard.

¶44

In the above circumstances, and with the above observations, these petitions are disposed off, costs having been made easy. The remand shall be decided by the Government or such other competent authority within an outer limit of three months, and further a compliance report shall be filed before the Addl. Registrar General of this Court.

¶45

It is open to the petitioner–Lokayukta to take up inter alia contempt proceedings if the above direction is not complied with by disposing off the remand. All contention in that regard are kept open."

¶46

In light of the above, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected.

¶47

To the above, we add that once the entrustment of enquiry order is quashed by the Tribunal, the legal position would be that the matter before the Government would go back to the stage of considering report submitted under Section 12(3) of the 1984 Act and State Government shall have to take action under Section 12(4) of the 1984 Act, that too within prescribed time.

¶48

In the instant case, on remand, the State Government has not taken action on 12(3) Report as directed by the Tribunal. Such action on the part of the State Government appears to be deliberate and as there is no interim

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37655-DB WP No. 46893 of 2019

¶50

order and as the Government has not challenged the order of the Tribunal, there was no impediment for the Government to take action as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the 1984 Act. As the State Government has failed to take action on 12(3) report in accordance with Section 12(4) of the 1984 Act, it is open for the petitioner-Authority to take action in accordance with Section 12(5) of the 1984 Act.

¶51

With the above, writ petition stands rejected.

¶52

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶54

SMJ

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Srinivas v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Srinivas v

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

M/S. Basf India Limited Vs L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited

Manyatha Vs Shri H.P.Umesh

Smt Susheelamma Vs Smt Chennamma

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri M Shambulinga Swamy

Sri. Javeed Vs State of Karnataka

M R Vasudev Vs the State of Karnataka