Sri Nanjunda Swamy, Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI NANJUNDA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O CHIKKASIDDAIAH FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, TOWN MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ATTIBELE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

HON'BLE UPA-LOKAYUKTA-2 OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶17

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-3 OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

2 -

¶19

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1;

¶22

SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE, WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENQUIRY REPORT No. UPLOK-2/DE/68/2021/ARE-3 OF THE RESPONDENT No.3 AS AT ANNEXURE-J, RECOMMENDATION OF THE RESPONDENT No.2 No.UPLOK-2/DE/68/2021/ARE-3 DATED 10.10.2022 AS AT ANNEXURE-K AND THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER No. NaAaEe 24 TMS 2020, DATED 27.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 AS AT ANNEXURE-M, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, D K SINGH J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶26

CAV ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶28

The present petition has been filed by the

¶29

petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the Inquiry Report No.Up-Lok2/DE/68/2021/ARE-3 submitted by the Respondent-

¶30

3 -

¶31

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶32

Registrar Enquiries-3, Office of Lokayukta (Annexure J). The petitioner has also challenged the recommendation of the Upalokayukta-2 dated 10.10.2022, (Annexure-K) and the impugned Government Order dated 27.02. 2023 issued by the Government, respondent No.1 (AnnexureM).

¶33

The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Incharge Revenue Inspector in the Office of City Municipal Corporation, KGF Kolar District, one Sri K. S. Saranathan of KGF lodged a complaint against petitioner and others, in the Office of Karnataka Lokayukta. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner would demand a bribe for change of khata etc., and out of the bribe money, he had purchased a vehicle worth Rs.18,00,000/-.

¶34

The Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Kolar, conducted the investigation on the complaint and submitted his report dated 17.11.2018. The Investigating Officer i.e., S.P, Karnataka Lokayukta in

¶35

4 -

¶36

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶37

his report dated 17.11.2018 stated that there was no material to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint.

¶38

As the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Kolar did not conduct any investigation regarding the allegation of purchase of the car by the petitioner worth Rs. 18,00,000/-, the Upalokayukta, respondent No.2 again directed the S.P, Kolar to conduct the investigation in respect of the purchase of the car by the petitioner allegedly for an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-. As per the direction of the Upalokayukta, Superintendent of Police conducted the further investigation and submitted the final scrutiny report dated 19.09.2020. In the report, it was stated that the value of the car purchased by the petitioner was Rs.7,10,000/-. The petitioner did not produce any document for having taken permission to purchase the car from the competent authority. It was further recorded in the final scrutiny report that the petitioner

¶39

5 -

¶40

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶41

had not obtained the prior permission from the competent authority for raising the loan.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid scrutiny report, the respondent No. 2, Upalokayukta submitted the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta to the Government recommending for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. The State Government accorded permission under Section 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals), Rules, 1957, for conducting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by the Lokayukta.

¶43

In pursuance to the entrustment order under Section 14-A, the enquiry officer, the Additional Registrar - Enquiries-3 issued articles of charge dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure-A) against the Petitioner. In sum and substance, the charge was that the petitioner had not obtained prior permission from the competent authority for purchase of the car and he had not obtained prior permission of the competent authority for

¶44

6 -

¶45

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶46

raising loans from the Bank and also he had not intimated the competent authority about purchase of LIC policies. Therefore, the petitioner had acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, as provided under Rule 3 (1) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct Rules), 1966.

¶47

The petitioner submitted his defence statement.

¶48

During the enquiry, the Discipline Authority examined the two witnesses, PW-1- the complainant and PW-2 - the investigating officer. The PW-1 in his evidence said that the public informed him about the demand of bribe by the petitioner. However he did not know their names who informed him about the demand of bribe by the petitioner. The PW-2, investigating officer deposed in the enquiry that on 28.06.2017 the complainant came to the police station and filed a complaint. The complainant had made allegations against the Delinquent Government Officer [DGO] that he was demanding bribe and out of the bribe money he had purchased the car

¶49

7 -

¶50

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶51

worth Rs. 18,00,000/-. The Investigating Officer had visited the City Municipal Corporation, KGF and conducted investigation and found that the complainant had made false allegations. On verification of the documents at the State Bank of India at Robertsonpete, KGF, it was found that Rs. 10,000/- had been credited to the petitioner's account from his wife's account and the said amount had been credited towards the vehicle loan of the car bearing registration number KA-08-M4797, Maruti Swift Dzire.

¶52

The petitioner's wife Rathnamma was working as a teacher at Kitturu Rani Chennamma School and she had obtained the loan from the Bank to purchase the car. Rathnamma had obtained prior permission from her Superior Officer to purchase the car. The value of the car as per the invoice was Rs.7,10,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- had been paid by the petitioner for availing loan on LIC bonds. In the assets and liabilities statement for the financial year 2016-17, the petitioner

¶53

8 -

¶54

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶55

had declared that he purchased the car from the salary of his wife, though the vehicle had been registered in the name of the petitioner.

¶56

Despite such evidence, the inquiry officer found the charge proved against the petitioner and the Upalokayukta, respondent No.2, made the

¶57

recommendation to impose penalty of withholding three annual increments payable to the petitioner, who was working as the Incharge Manager (First Division Assistant), City Municipal Council, Kolar Goldfield, Kolar District.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶59

the Enquiry Officer in his report could find that the petitioner's wife, who was also a government servant had applied for loan to purchase the car. The petitioner’s wife had taken permission from her higher authority for purchase of the car and for obtaining the loan. Though the car was purchased from the funds provided by the petitioner's wife and the loan was obtained by her, the

¶60

9 -

¶61

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶62

registration was made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not required to take permission from the higher authorities for purchase of the car. He did not apply for loan and he had not obtained any loan for purchase of the car but, it was the petitioner’s wife, who had applied for loan with prior permission to purchase of the car.

¶63

In respect of the purchase of the LIC policy, it is submitted that it is well within the knowledge of the competent authorities as much as the premium is deducted from the salary of the petitioner in respect of the policies purchased by the petitioner. The submission is that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved, and despite the report of the Enquiry Officer in this respect, the learned Upalokayukta has made recommendation to the Government for inflicting major penalty of withholding of 3 increments with cumulative effect in the impugned recommendation dated

¶64

10 -

¶65

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶66

10.10.2022 and the disciplinary authority has inflicted the said punishment.

¶67

Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta has supported the report of the Lokayukta and recommendation made for inflicting the major penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect.

¶68

The question which requires to be answered in this writ petition is that whether the charge stood proved against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry?

¶69

It is not in dispute that the petitioner's wife who is a Government servant had obtained permission to purchase the car and she had also obtained loan with prior permission of her higher authority. If the wife of the petitioner had obtained permission to purchase the car and also got sanctioned the loan for purchase of the car with the prior permission of the competent authority, mere registration of the vehicle in the name of her

¶70

11 -

¶71

WP No. 9372 of 2023

¶72

husband, would not amount to any misconduct committed by the petitioner. We, therefore, after considering the allegation/charge and evidence, are of the considered view that the charge of purchasing the car without prior permission and obtaining the loan without prior permission of the higher authority, did not get proved against the petitioner. So far as the two policies have been purchased by the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the premium of Rs.2,762 and Rs.2,415/are paid by being deducted from the salary of the petitioner on his instruction and this is well within the knowledge of the higher authorities. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and triviality of the charge, we are of the opinion, that the recommendation of the Lokayukta for inflicting the major penalty of withholding three increments with cumulative effect as well as the order of punishment dated 27.02.2023 passed by the State Government are untenable. We therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the enquiry report dated 07.10.2022 and the

¶73