Allowed¶61

State of Karnataka v. K Govindaiah

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2026CRL.RP/151/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018, S Vishwajith Shetty J, order dated 27.01.2026 - sanction to prosecute BBMP employee under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; competent sanctioning authority for BBMP employee; Rule 8 of CCA Rules, 1957; proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991; 'Government' to be read as 'Commissioner' for BBMP; discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. set aside; relied on Commissioner, BBMP vs. H. M. Siddagangaiah and Another, WA No.2208/2006.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition allowed; impugned order dated 10.08.2017 passed in Special CC. No.275/2016 set aside; Trial Court directed to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law. ¶61

State of Karnataka Vs K Govindaiah — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision petition allowed; impugned order dated 10.08.2017 passed in Special CC. No.275/2016 set aside; Trial Court directed to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commissioner of BBMP, and not the Government, is the competent authority to issue the sanction order to prosecute the respondent, an employee of BBMP, for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in view of Rule 8 of the CCA Rules, 1957 and the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1991.

¶41

Court's answer

The Trial Court was not justified in holding that the Commissioner of BBMP was not the competent authority to issue the Sanction Order to prosecute the respondent, who is undisputedly an employee of BBMP; the respondent was discharged only on that ground.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Division Bench decision in WA No.2208/2006 and, more so, the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1991, the Commissioner of the BBMP is the competent authority to issue the Sanction Order, and therefore the impugned order needs to be set-aside.

¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision by the State under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.08.2017 in Special CC. No.275/2016 by which the respondent, an Executive Engineer (Group A) of BBMP charge sheeted under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was discharged on the ground that the sanction order was issued by the Commissioner of BBMP and not by the competent authority. The Trial Court had relied on Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 to hold that the Government, and not the Commissioner, was competent to issue the sanction. Held: in view of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991, and the Division Bench decision in Commissioner, BBMP vs. H. M. Siddagangaiah and Another, WA No.2208/2006 (wherein the expression 'Government' in Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, 1957 was held to be read as 'Commissioner' insofar as BBMP is concerned), the Commissioner of BBMP is the competent authority to issue the sanction order to prosecute a BBMP employee. The Trial Court was not justified in holding otherwise. Criminal revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside; Trial Court directed to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4420 CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 151 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR KARANTAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE WING, CITY DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRASAD B.S, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

K. GOVINDAIAH S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRIC) DIVSIION (WEST) B.B.M.P BENGALURU, R/AT NO.73 MAHALAKSHMI NIALAYA NAGARABHAVI, 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI KARIAPPA N.A, ADV.)

¶14

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ORDER DATED 10.08.2017 PASSED BY XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-24) IN SPL.C.C.NO.275/2016.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:4420 CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The State is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 10.08.2017 passed in Special CC. No.275/2016 by the Court of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Respondent herein was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P. C. Act' for short) in Crime No.35/2013 by the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, City Division, Bengaluru, and case was registered against him before the Special Court in Special CC. No.275/2016. In the said proceedings, respondent had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to discharge him from the charge sheeted offences. The said application was opposed by the prosecution by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 10.08.2017 has allowed the application filed on behalf of the

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:4420 CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and he was discharged

¶28

for the time being with liberty to the Investigating Officer to resubmit the charge sheet after obtaining sanction order from the competent authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the State/prosecution is before this Court.

¶29

Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State submits that respondent is an employee of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Undisputedly, BBMP has adopted the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules, 1957) and placing reliance on Rule 8 of the CCA Rules, 1957, the Trial Court has held that Government is the competent authority to issue sanction order and not the Commissioner. He submits that proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Karnataka City Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1991' for short) has not been considered by the Trial Court which states that the word 'Government' found in the CCA Rules, 1957, has to be read as 'Commissioner'. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:4420 CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner, BBMP vs. H. M. Siddagangaiah and Another in WA No.2208/2006 disposed off on 13.03.2014.

¶34

Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Rules, 1991, has been misread by the Division Bench of this

¶35

Court in the case of Commissioner, BBMP vs. H. M. Siddagangaiah and Another in WA No.2208/2006. He submits that a reading of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1991, would make it very clear that word 'Government' has to be read as "Government in Housing and Urban Development Department" and not as "Commissioner". He submits that Commissioner is not the appointing or removal authority of the respondent, who is a Group A Category Officer. The Commissioner and the respondent are both group A Category Officers and therefore, it cannot be said that Commissioner is the competent authority to issue the Sanction Order. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶36

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that respondent had joined BBMP as Assistant Engineer and he was

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:4420 CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

subsequently promoted to the post of Executive Engineer which

¶41

is considered as Group A Category Post. Undisputedly, BBMP has adopted CCA Rules, 1957 and Rule 8 of the said Rules provides that Government is the authority empowered to impose penalty on Group A Category Officials. Placing reliance on Rule 8 of CCA Rules, 1957, the Trial Court has therefore, held the Commissioner of BBMP, who has issued the Sanction Order in the present case was not the competent authority and accordingly, has allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

¶42

Rules, 1991, provides for the service conditions of the employees of the BBMP. Rule 2 of the Rules, 1991, reads as follows:-

¶43

"2. Definitions.- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires.-

¶44

(a) "Act" means the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1977);

¶45

(b) "Appointing authority" means the authority competent to make appointments under Sections 82, 85 or 86 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976;

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:4420 CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(c) "Commissioner" means Commissioner of a City Corporation appointed under sub-section(1) of Section 14 of the Act;

¶50

(d) "Employee" means an Officer or Servant appointed by a City Corporation or other Competent Authority and includes persons absorbed in the service of City Corporation;

¶51

(e) "Schedule" means schedule appended to these rules.

¶52

(2) All words and expressions used in these rules but not defined shall have the same meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka civil Services rules, as amended from time to time:

¶53

Provided that the expressions "Government Servant(s)", "Head of the Department(s)", "the Government" or/and "the Governor" wherever they occur in the rules mentioned in Rule 4 of these rules, shall respectively mean "Employee", "Commissioner or any of his Nominee" and "Government in Housing and Urban Development Department".

¶54

Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1991, was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2208/2006 (Commissioner, BBMP vs. H. M.

¶55

Siddagangaiah and Another) . In the said case, question that arose for consideration was whether the Commissioner was

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:4420 CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

competent to pass the order impugned therein in terms of Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, 1957 read with the Rules, 1991.

¶60

In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has held that expression 'Government' as contemplated in Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, 1957, would have to be read as 'Commissioner' insofar as the BBMP is considered. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in holding that the Commissioner of BBMP was not the competent authority to issue Sanction Order to prosecute the respondent, who is undisputedly an employee of the BBMP. Only on the said ground, the Trial Court has discharged the respondent. In view of the aforesaid, more so the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 the Rules, 1991, the Commissioner of the BBMP is the competent authority to issue Sanction Order and therefore, the impugned order needs to be set-aside. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶61

The criminal revision petition is allowed. The order dated 10.08.2017 passed in Special CC. No.275/2016 by the Court of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:4420 CRL.RP No. 151 of 2018

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Judge, Bengaluru, is set-aside and the Trial Court is directed to

¶66

proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.

¶67

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶68