The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Manjunath Tavane

SRI MANJUNATH TAVANE, S/O PARAMESHWAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS DEPT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU NORTH ADDL TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02/03/2021 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5699/2019 b) PASS SUCH ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶25

IN WP NO.8671/2023

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI. MANJUNATH TAVANE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O PARAMESHWAR

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY, SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK, YELAHANKA,

¶36

BENGLAURU – 560 063.

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R2)

¶40

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02/03/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5699/2019, AS PER ANNEXUREA; ii) AWARD THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION; AND iii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶41

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶47

These two petitions, by State as well as Lokayukta, calling in question the order dated 02.03.2021 in application No.5699/2019, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal by the order impugned allowed the application and quashed the order dated 02.03.2019 passed by respondent No.1 (vide Annexure A) and the order dated 06.08.2019 issued by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure A9), insofar as they relate to the applicant/private respondent in both petitions. The Tribunal also directed the Government, which is the petitioner in WP.No.16393/2022, to pay all consequential benefits to which the respondent is entitled.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶51

The brief factual matrix leading to the

¶52

filing of the present petition are as under:

¶53

One Sri.Balaiah, S/o.Sannappa filed a complaint on 12.08.2013. With respect to nonconsideration of his application for Darakasthu Podi Durasti in the year 2000, with respect to land bearing Sy.No.245/P2 at Neralekere Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tamukur District, before the petitioner - Lokayukta.

¶54

Upon receipt of the complaint, the applicant/private respondent was issued an observation note with the complaint. The applicant filed his reply stating that he had assumed charge from 01.10.2013 to 27.07.2014 as ADLR in the office of the Assistant

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub-Division,

¶58

Madhugiri, and was thereafter transferred. He was not working at the relevant time i.e., either in 2000 or on the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 12.08.2013.

¶59

Not satisfied with the applicant's explanation, the petitioner - Lokayukta in WP.No.8671/2023 sent a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('the Act of 1984' for short), to the Government.

¶60

The Government/Disciplinary

¶61

Authority, acting under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, entrusted the matter to the petitioner - Lokayukta under Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1957 ('the CCA Rules 1957' for short).

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Upon entrustment of the enquiry, the

¶65

petitioner-Lokayukta appointed the Assistant Registrar of Enquiries-4 (ARE-4) as the Enquiry Officer, who has issued articles of charge and a statement of imputation on 06.08.2019 to the applicant and another (Annexure-A9).

¶66

Calling in question the orders of entrustment as well as the issuance of articles of

¶67

charge, the applicant/private respondent approached the Tribunal in Application No.5699/2019.

¶68

Upon acceptance of notice, the

¶69

Government did not file any objections, but opposed to the application as not maintainable.

¶70

It further contented that the application is premature and hence sought to dismiss the application.

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

statement of objection contending along the same lines as the Government/Disciplinary Authority, stating that there was no merit in the case and alleging that there was misconduct on the part of the applicant which seriously affected the state administration and rights of the public, relying on certain judgments of this Court in its statement of objections.

¶74

The Tribunal having heard all the

¶75

parties, came to a conclusion that the application was filed in the year 2000 for Darakasthu Podi Durasti and was laying in the office of the Revenue Department for a period of 13 years and the complaint came to be filed on 12.08.2013, and as on the said date the applicant was not at all working at the said place as he took charge of the post on 01.10.2013 and was relieved from the

¶76

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

post on 27.07.2014. That apart, the Tribunal relied under Rule 4(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules, 1984, wherein it is stated that whenever a complaint is presented in-person or sent through a registered post to the Registrar of the Lokayukta, such complaints shall be acknowledged by the Registrar specifying the name and designation of the public servant against whom the complaint is made.

¶79

13. There was a shortfall in this mandatory

¶80

requirement, as per the records. The Lokayukta under Section 12(3), and the Government under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, failed to consider these aspects of the matter, the petitionerLokayukta, mechanically sent the report and the petitioner-Government has accepted, and the matter was entrusted. The Tribunal, having found so, held that the applicant has made out a case,

¶81

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

accordingly allowed the application, setting aside the orders mentioned supra and directed the Government to pay all consequential benefits to the applicant, in a Time Bound manner.

¶84

It is this order passed by the Tribunal

¶85

that is challenged in these two petitions by the State as well as the Karnataka Lokayukta.

¶86

Heard Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner in WP.No.16393/2022 and

¶87

Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy K.S., learned counsel on the panel in WP.No.8671/2023.

¶88

Both the counsel submitted in unison

¶89

that there was no irregularity or illegality either by Lokayukta in forwarding the report under Section 12(3) or the Government in acting on the same under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984

¶90

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

entrusting the matter to the Karnataka

¶93

Lokayukta for enquiry.

¶94

They argued that the applicant, along

¶95

with other officers, was derelict in the discharge of his duty with respect to a citizen who had been running around the office for the last thirteen years for Darakasthu Podi Durasti. The nonmentioning of a name is not fatal to the culmination of proceedings under Rule 4(2) stated supra, when there is dereliction of official duties and misconduct, an enquiry must be conducted, and the applicant would have every opportunity to put forth his defence in the enquiry, the Tribunal failed to consider these aspects of the matter. Upon these grounds, they sought to allow the petitions, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, and consequently dismiss the

¶96

application.

¶97

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

The law on entrustment is no more res-

¶100

integra, as the same has been settled in catena of

¶101

judgments by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In view of law declared by the Co-ordinate Bench’s of this Court, the Government cannot exercise power under Section 12(4) in a routine and mechanical manner, as the same requires the application of mind beyond the report. The report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, is the opinion of the concerned institution. The Government, while entrusting an enquiry under Section 12(4), is required to consider other factual materials forwarded with the report and collected from the concerned department to form an opinion that, whether a case for entrustment is made out or not. Surely, in the present factual matrix, no such proper consideration was made

¶102

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

out, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶105

The Tribunal allowed the application

¶106

on two grounds:

¶107

(i) there is a delay of thirteen years in filing

¶108

the complaint,

¶109

(ii) there is a violation of the mandatory rule prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1984. The Tribunal has considered the fact that on the date of the complaint, 12.08.2013, the applicant was not working.

¶110

Admittedly, the petitioner was posted and reported to duty on 01.10.2013 and was relieved on transfer on 27.07.2014. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the report under Section 12(3) contained nothing as to who was the Assistant Director of Land

¶111

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:41631-DB WP No. 16393 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8671 of 2023

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

Records ('ADLR' for short) was prior to the applicant assuming charge on 01.10.2013 and found that there was patently no such reference.

¶114

In these circumstances, the Tribunal

¶115

was of the opinion that, in the complaint dated 12.08.2013, the complaint was filed against (1) Tahsildar Madhugiri and (2) Survey Officer. There

¶116

is no person specifically named against whom the complaint was made, but it was only against the designations, which falls short of the requirements of Rule 4(2) of Rules, 1984, stated supra. In the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal rightly allowed the application, set aside the orders, and directed the Government to grant all financial benefits to which the applicant is entitled. No infirmities are found in the order passed by the Tribunal which call for any interference.

¶117